Dimitri Fontaine escribió:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> > I think it's fairly obvious that
> > (1) dealing with a DROP only after it's happened is pretty limiting;
> > (2) allowing user-defined code to run mid-command is dangerous.
> > What's at issue is the tradeoff we make between these inescapable
> > facts, and I'm not sure if we can get consensus on that.
Mmm.
> > On the whole, though, I'm thinking that the approach Robert suggests
> > is the way to go, because it doesn't foreclose our doing something
> > else later. Whereas if we ship 9.3 with a mid-DROP event, and we then
> > find out that it's even more dangerous than we currently realize,
> > we're going to be between a rock and a hard place.
Makes sense.
> The good news is that the patch to do that has already been sent on this
> list, and got reviewed in details by Álvaro who did offer incremental
> changes. Version 3 of that patch is to be found in:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/m2fw19n1hr.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr
As I recall there were a few more fixes I wanted to do on top of that
patch. I will see about that. Thanks for the pointer.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
