Re: Adding missing object access hook invocations - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Mark Dilger
Subject Re: Adding missing object access hook invocations
Date
Msg-id 330CE9A8-47A4-4C6C-8435-E6A86F3D2E6B@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Adding missing object access hook invocations  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Adding missing object access hook invocations  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers

> On Mar 17, 2020, at 11:49 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> On 2020-03-16 16:03:51 -0700, Mark Dilger wrote:
>> While working on object access hooks, I noticed several locations
>> where I would expect the hook to be invoked, but no actual invocation.
>> I think this just barely qualifies as a bug.  It's debatable because
>> whether it is a bug depends on the user's expectations and whether not
>> invoking the hook in these cases is defensible.  Does anybody have any
>> recollection of an intentional choice not to invoke in these
>> locations?
>
> I am strongly against treating this as a bug, which'd likely imply
> backpatching. New hook invocations are a noticable behavioural change,
> and very plausibly will break currently working extensions. That's fine
> for a major version upgrade, but not for a minor one, unless there are
> very good reasons.

I agree that this does not need to be back-patched.  I was debating whether it constitutes a bug for the purpose of
puttingthe fix into v13 vs. punting the patch forward to the v14 cycle.  I don't have a strong opinion on that. 

Thoughts?

—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company






pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Btree BackwardScan race condition on Standby during VACUUM
Next
From: Laurenz Albe
Date:
Subject: Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)