On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 4:16 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 06:41:02PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'd be okay with a hook that there was a way to override ("yes,
> >> I know what I'm doing, this doesn't require a catversion change").
> >> But there's no way to do that is there?
>
> > I'm pretty sure there is. The program called by the commit hook can
> > prompt the user for input.
>
> ... um, but the commit hook in question would run on the repo server.
> Is there really something in the git protocol that would allow sending
> this sort of interaction back to the person running "git push"?
>
> I think you are right that individual committers could set up such hooks
> in their own private repos. But that's not what was being suggested,
> or so I thought.
>
I was really thinking of a client side hook. The reason I started the
discussion is so I could institutionalize the knowledge, e.g. by
adding something to the wiki.
I was also thinking of something that would give a warning rather than
reject the commit. Then the committer could ignore it or not as they
choose. Something like that might also be valuable on the server
side, since it would mean all committers would get the warning when
appropriate, but it might not be worth the trouble.
I agree that we don't want something server side that would reject a
commit on this basis.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
