| From: | Danil Anisimow <anisimow(dot)d(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Comments on Custom RMGRs |
| Date: | 2024-02-29 14:47:57 |
| Message-ID: | CABm2Ma5Hi9PU_wWP0f=YFu9aDDdeSdX2+JFDL_oDH-QHgexsgg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 2:56 AM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> Let's pick this discussion back up, then. Where should the hook go?
> Does it need to be broken into phases like resource owners? What
> guidance can we provide to extension authors to use it correctly?
>
> Simon's right that these things don't need to be 100% answered for
> every hook we add; but I agree with Andres and Robert that this could
> benefit from some more discussion about the details.
>
> The proposal calls the hook right after CheckPointPredicate() and
> before CheckPointBuffers(). Is that the right place for the use case
> you have in mind with pg_stat_statements?
Hello!
Answering your questions might take some time as I want to write a sample
patch for pg_stat_statements and make some tests.
What do you think about putting the patch to commitfest as it closing in a
few hours?
--
Regards,
Daniil Anisimov
Postgres Professional: http://postgrespro.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jacob Champion | 2024-02-29 14:49:02 | Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER |
| Previous Message | Andrey M. Borodin | 2024-02-29 13:19:58 | Re: Injection points: some tools to wait and wake |