Re: sql_drop Event Trigger

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: sql_drop Event Trigger
Date: 2013-02-06 14:40:38
Message-ID: 20130206144038.GD4299@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dimitri Fontaine escribió:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:

> > I have not tested the actual behavior of the latest patch, but I think
> > we want to define things so that the
> > pg_event_trigger_dropped_objects() function returns, specifically, the
> > list of objects dropped by the command which caused the event trigger
> > to fire. In other words, in the above example, the first, recursive
> > invocation of B should see the object removed by A's DROP-IF-EXISTS,
> > and the second invocation should see the object removed by the
> > toplevel command.
>
> I disagree with that. I don't see why the enclosing event trigger
> shouldn't be aware of all the objects dropped by the command that just
> ran to completion, *including* the effects of any event trigger fired
> recursively or not.

Not sure about that. If the trigger records objects dropped in a table,
aren't they going to show up there twice if you do that?

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2013-02-06 14:43:06 Re: get_progname() should not be const char *?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2013-02-06 14:40:37 Re: palloc unification