|From:||Mark Wong <markwkm(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|To:||Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>|
|Cc:||pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Konstantina Skovola <konskov(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: trigger example for plsample|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 06:36:44PM -0500, Chapman Flack wrote:
> On 03/02/22 15:12, Mark Wong wrote:
> > I've attached v2, which reduces the output:
> > * Removing the notices for the text body, and the "compile" message.
> > * Replaced the notice for "compile" message with a comment as a
> > placeholder for where a compiling code or checking a cache may go.
> > * Reducing the number of rows inserted into the table, thus reducing
> > the number of notice messages about which code path is taken.
> I think the simplifying assumption of a simple interpreted language allows
> a lot more of this code to go away. I mean more or less that whole first
> PG_TRY...PG_END_TRY block, which could be replaced with a comment saying
> something like
> The source text may be augmented here, such as by wrapping it as the
> body of a function in the target language, prefixing a parameter list
> with names like TD_name, TD_relid, TD_table_name, TD_table_schema,
> TD_event, TD_when, TD_level, TD_NEW, TD_OLD, and args, using whatever
> types in the target language are convenient. The augmented text can be
> cached in a longer-lived memory context, or, if the target language uses
> a compilation step, that can be done here, caching the result of the
> That would leave only the later PG_TRY block where the function gets
> "executed". That could stay largely as is, but should probably also have
> a comment within it, something like
> Here the function (the possibly-augmented source text, or the result
> of compilation if the target language uses such a step) should be
> executed, after binding these values from the TriggerData struct to
> the expected parameters.
> That should make the example shorter and clearer, and preserve the output
> tested by the regression test. Trying to show much more than that involves
> assumptions about what the PL's target language syntax looks like, how its
> execution engine works and parameters are bound, and so on, and that is
> likely to just be distracting, IMV.
I think I've applied all of these suggestions and attached a new patch.
|Next Message||Andrew Dunstan||2022-04-06 20:58:00||Re: buildfarm failures, src/test/recovery|
|Previous Message||Peter Geoghegan||2022-04-06 20:14:04||Re: New compiler warning from btree dedup code|