On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
<dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.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
