Re: Command Triggers, patch v11 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dimitri Fontaine
Subject Re: Command Triggers, patch v11
Date
Msg-id m2haxrvb8j.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Command Triggers, patch v11  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Command Triggers, patch v11  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> Generally, uppon rereading, I have to say that I am not very happy with the
>> decision that ANY triggers are fired from other places than the specific
>> triggers. That seams to be a rather dangerous/confusing route to me.
>
> I agree. I think that's a complete non-starter.

Ok, well, let me react in 2 ways here:
A. it's very easy to change and will simplify the codeB. it's been done this way for good reasons (at the time)

Specifically, I've been asked to implement the feature of blocking all
and any DDL activity on a machine in a single command, and we don't have
support for triggers on all commands (remember shared objects).

Now, as I've completed support for all interesting commands the
discrepancy between what's supported in the ANY case and in the specific
command case has reduced. If you're saying to nothing, that's good news.

Also, when calling the user's procedure from the same place in case of an
ANY command trigger or a specific one it's then possible to just hand
them over the exact same set of info (object id, name, schema name).

Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Vivek Singh Raghuwanshi
Date:
Subject: Keystone auth in PostgreSQL
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Too many IO?