| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ProcessUtility_hook |
| Date: | 2009-12-10 02:15:17 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070912091815t690b37baq8512b9a48c6a1b86@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Why does this patch #ifdef out the _PG_fini code in pg_stat_statements?
Where you check for INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE return codes in
pgss_ProcessUtility, I think this deserves a comment explaining that
these could occur as a result of EXECUTE. It wasn't obvious to me,
anyway.
It seems to me that the current hook placement does not address this complaint
>> 1. The placement of the hook. Why is it three lines down in
>> ProcessUtility? It's probably reasonable to have the Assert first,
>> but I don't see why the hook function should have the ability to
>> editorialize on the behavior of everything about ProcessUtility
>> *except* the read-only-xact check.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Takahiro Itagaki | 2009-12-10 02:33:01 | Re: ProcessUtility_hook |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-12-10 02:00:22 | Re: bug: fuzzystrmatch levenshtein is wrong |