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: | 2013-02-14 17:00:33 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobXocRNFGAOcz33oXeHXG1YVT5HW=Lk4x2=Q_rO=vWs9Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
<dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Robert, you specifically opposed to "sql_drop" and I just removed it
>>> from the patch. What do you think now? Also, should that be a follow-up
>>> patch to the current one for your reviewing purposes?
>>
>> Well, if it has a different firing point than ddl_command_end, then
>> there could well be some point to having it after all. But I'm far
>> from convinced that the proposed firing point can be made safe without
>> a major refactoring. I think this is the sort of things where "design
>> before code" ought to be the cardinal rule.
>
> Ok se we are in agreement here. I think we should see about getting the
> dropped_objects.3.patch.gz in (pending review), ...
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?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jonathan Rogers | 2013-02-14 17:18:08 | Re: [RFC] ideas for a new Python DBAPI driver (was Re: libpq test suite) |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2013-02-14 16:57:01 | Re: BUG #7493: Postmaster messages unreadable in a Windows console |