| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER? |
| Date: | 2012-03-09 21:16:58 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZXQmo2TyTejM+0XrnHLj3Zi+ZRDK9qdEGPHqWTrEuuyQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> If we're going to go the ad-hoc route, there seems little reason to be
> considering a core patch at all. Freestanding checkers could just as
> well be independent projects.
I completely agree. I think there is little reason to be considering
a core patch. I haven't seen any convincing evidence (or any evidence
at all) that being able to fling checkers at a large number of
functions written in different procedural languages is an important
use case for anyone. I think the vast majority of checking will get
done one function at a time; and therefore we are gilding the lily.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-03-09 21:38:53 | Re: Command Triggers, patch v11 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-09 21:13:15 | Re: Is it time for triage on the open patches? |