Re: [v9.3] OAT_POST_ALTER object access hooks

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [v9.3] OAT_POST_ALTER object access hooks
Date: 2012-12-03 14:07:54
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZ1JKapzW9LwqRUoxh+Ra5Yauiaqr-8f4wCBYbj7Ld2dw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 2:57 AM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> wrote:
> * Do we need OAT_POST_ALTER hook even if no fields were updated
> actually? In case when ALTER SET OWNER, it checks object's ownership
> only when current and new user-id is not same. Right now, I follow this
> manner on OAT_POST_ALTER invocation.
> However, I'm inclined to consider the hook should be invoked when no
> fields are actually updated also. (It allows extension-side to determine
> necessity of processing something.)

I agree. I think it should always be called.
> * When tablespace of relation was changed, it seems to me the point to
> invoke OAT_POST_ALTER hook should be "after" ATRewriteTable().
> However, it usually long time to rewrite whole the table if it already have
> large number of rows. I'm not 100% certain to put hook here, so this
> version does not support hook when tablespace changes.

Well, if it's a post-alter hook, it should presumably happen as close
to the end of processing as possible. But are you sure that's really
what you want? I would think that for SE-Linux you'd be wanting to
get control much earlier in the process.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2012-12-03 14:08:35 Re: Hot Standby Feedback should default to on in 9.3+
Previous Message Robert Haas 2012-12-03 14:03:33 Re: [v9.3] OAT_POST_ALTER object access hooks