From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: sql_drop Event Trigger |
Date: | 2013-02-16 01:20:10 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYH--zrt9STdTWbwpZyYM6cKch2ZS0nGSbg9Dw-1XDVVA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
<dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Wait, I'm confused. I had a note to myself to come back and review
>> this, but now that I look at it, I didn't think that patch was pending
>> review. Alvaro, Tom, and I all made comments that seems to impinge
>> upon that design rather heavily. No?
>
> The current design follows exactly your comments and design requests.
> Tom and Álvaro comments are the ones you did answer to saying that it's
> not 9.3 material, but next release at best, subject to heavy refactoring.
>
> What did I miss?
Well, there's this, upon which we surely have not achieved consensus:
And then Tom also wrote this, which is kind of a good point, too:
> Well, a list of object OIDs is of exactly zero use once the command
> has been carried out. So I don't think that that represents a useful
> or even very testable feature on its own, if there's no provision to
> fire user code while the OIDs are still in the catalogs.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-02-16 01:24:16 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-02-16 01:01:10 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |