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

Re: Use of systable_beginscan_ordered in event trigger patch

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Use of systable_beginscan_ordered in event trigger patch
Date: 2012-08-30 10:42:03
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I find $SUBJECT fairly scary, because systable_beginscan_ordered() is
> dependent on having a working, non-corrupt index.  If you are trying
> to run the backend with ignore_system_indexes so that you can rebuild
> corrupt indexes, uses of systable_beginscan_ordered() represent places
> where you can't turn that off, and are entirely at the mercy of the
> indexes being good.

Ooops. Didn't see that, thanks for noticing!

> Or maybe we should disable event triggers altogether in standalone mode?


> I can think of plenty of ways that a broken event trigger could cause
> enough havoc that you'd wish there was a way to suppress it, at least
> for long enough to drop it again.

I fail to see how enabling Event Triggers in standalone mode would help
you get out of the situation that lead you there. It's a last resort
facility where you want the bare PostgreSQL behavior, I think. Now that
you mention it.

Dimitri Fontaine     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2012-08-30 11:08:43
Subject: Re: multi-master pgbench?
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2012-08-30 09:02:09
Subject: Re: Draft release notes complete

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