Tom Lane wrote:
> wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> > I consider it a hack, since this particular trigger needs a
> > global flag known explicitly by xact routines. I like general
> > solutions instead.
> Well, really it's pg_pwd itself that is a hack --- we wouldn't need
> to be worrying about all this if pg_pwd didn't exist outside the
> database/transaction universe. But I don't think it'd be wise to
> try to bring the postmaster into that universe, so we're stuck with
> a hack for exporting user authorization info.
> If we had examples of other problems that could be solved by such
> a mechanism, then I'd agree with Jan that we ought to invent a general
> after-commit-do mechanism. But I don't recall users clamoring for it,
> so I question whether the extra effort is worthwhile.
Exactly these days there was someone having trouble to
dynamically load the tclLDAP package into PL/Tcl. He wanted
to UPDATE his LDAP from inside a trigger.
If he hasn't had this loading problem, I'd never known. So I
assume there are already constructs like this out there.
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#========================================= wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2000-02-28 08:28:10|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A further thought on rule string size|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2000-02-28 08:02:22|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] update_pg_pwd trigger does not work very well |