Re: InvokeObjectPostAlterHook() vs. CommandCounterIncrement()
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: InvokeObjectPostAlterHook() vs. CommandCounterIncrement() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+Tgmob0jOz-JP0uXDnY+eDQ7pFn2pOjoET1UxF10_WEJEh7DQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: InvokeObjectPostAlterHook() vs. CommandCounterIncrement() (Ants Aasma <ants.aasma@eesti.ee>) |
Ответы |
Re: InvokeObjectPostAlterHook() vs.
CommandCounterIncrement()
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Ants Aasma <ants.aasma@eesti.ee> wrote: > On Jul 21, 2013 4:06 AM, "Noah Misch" <noah@leadboat.com> wrote: >> If these hooks will need to apply to a larger operation, I >> think that mandates a different means to reliably expose the before/after >> object states. > > I haven't checked the code to see how it would fit the API, but what about > taking a snapshot before altering and passing this to the hook. Would there > be other issues besides performance? If the snapshot is taken only when > there is a hook present then the performance can be fixed later. I had the idea of finding a way to pass either the old tuple, or perhaps just the TID of the old tuple. Not sure if passing a snapshot is better. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: