Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: minimal update

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: minimal update
Date: 2008-10-21 13:34:04
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 20 okt 2008, at 16.51, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:

> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>>>>> OK. Where would be a good place to put the code? Maybe a new file
>>>>> src/backend/utils/adt/trigger_utils.c ?
>>>> I thought the plan was to make it a contrib module.
>>> Well, previous discussion did mention catalog entries, which would
>>> suggest otherwise, but I can do it as a contrib module if that's the
>>> consensus.
>> What would be the actual reason to put it in contrib and not core?  
>> Are
>> there any "dangers" by having it there? Or is it "just a hack" and  
>> not a
>> "real solution"?
> No, it's not just a hack. It's very close to what we'd probably do  
> if we built the facility right into the language, although it does  
> involve the overhead of calling the trigger. However, it performs  
> reasonably well - not surprising since the guts of it is just a  
> memcmp() call.
In that case, why not put the trigger in core so people can use it  


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew SullivanDate: 2008-10-21 13:35:22
Subject: Re: SSL cleanups/hostname verification
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-10-21 13:10:13
Subject: Re: automatic parser generation for ecpg

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group