From: | Mary Xu <yxu2162(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: oat_post_create expected behavior |
Date: | 2022-08-02 20:30:52 |
Message-ID: | CAHoZxqvVj-MZw8xDXTso4YF7VyOsk254nhdUw5rWTiF4i-V4SA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Right, same thing I'm saying. I also think we should discourage
> people from doing cowboy CCIs inside their OAT hooks, because that
> makes the testability problem even worse. Maybe that means we
> need to uniformly move the CREATE hooks to after a system-provided
> CCI, but I've not thought hard about the implications of that.
I like this approach, however, I am relatively new to the PG scene and
am not sure how or what I should look into in terms of the
implications that Tom mentioned. Are there any tips? What should be
the next course of action here? I could update my patch to always call
CCI before the create hooks.
Thanks,
Mary Xu
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 11:12 AM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2022-06-06 at 17:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Right, same thing I'm saying. I also think we should discourage
> > people from doing cowboy CCIs inside their OAT hooks, because that
> > makes the testability problem even worse. Maybe that means we
> > need to uniformly move the CREATE hooks to after a system-provided
> > CCI, but I've not thought hard about the implications of that.
>
> Uniformly moving the post-create hooks after CCI might not be as
> convenient as I thought at first. Many extensions using post-create
> hooks will also want to use post-alter hooks, and it would be difficult
> to reuse extension code between those two hooks. It's probably better
> to just always specify the snapshot unless you're sure you won't need a
> post-alter hook.
>
> It would be nice if it was easier to enforce that these hooks do the
> right thing, though.
>
> Regards,
> Jeff Davis
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2022-08-02 20:44:52 | Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade |
Previous Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2022-08-02 20:20:25 | Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade |