> On 3 Apr 2023, at 16:09, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 9:15 AM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
>>> On 3 Apr 2023, at 15:09, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I continue to think it's odd that the sense of this is inverted as
>>> compared with row_security.
>>
>> I'm not sure I follow. Do you propose that the GUC enables classes of event
>> triggers, the default being "all" (or similar) and one would remove the type of
>> EVT for which debugging is needed? That doesn't seem like a bad idea, just one
>> that hasn't come up in the discussion (and I didn't think about).
>
> Right. Although to be fair, that idea doesn't sound as good if we're
> going to have settings other than "on" or "off".
Yeah. The patch as it stands allow for disabling specific types rather than
all-or-nothing, which is why the name was "ignore".
> I'm not sure what the best thing to do is here, I just think it
> deserves some thought.
Absolutely, the discussion is much appreciated. Having done some thinking I
think I'm still partial to framing it as a disabling GUC rather than an
enabling; with the act of setting it being "As an admin I want to skip
execution of all evt's of type X".
--
Daniel Gustafsson
