| From: | Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, legrand legrand <legrand_legrand(at)hotmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hooks for session start and end, take two |
| Date: | 2019-10-03 14:19:58 |
| Message-ID: | CAFcNs+qhQwcAja-bwYg6uYzLR+hhBZXKmT2GVz-MiLE=D-YuQA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 1:35 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> In this state I think this patch should be flat out rejected.
>
Ok.
> I'm seriously baffled at how this stuff is being pursued aggressively,
> quite apparently without any serious design considerations. I mean this
> stuff had to be backed out twice, yet it's being reproposed without much
> consideration for concerns?
>
And what if (again) for the first version of session start hook we do it
just for:
- client backends
- background workers
For sure we'll need new design, but for now I'm can't imagine a use case
for sessions different than listed above.
Regards,
--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello Timbira - http://www.timbira.com.br/
PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Natarajan R | 2019-10-03 14:21:04 | Re: Regarding extension |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-10-03 14:18:04 | Re: WIP: Generic functions for Node types using generated metadata |