Thread: Re: allowing extensions to control planner behavior

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm somewhat expecting to be flamed to a well-done crisp for saying
> this, but I think we need better ways for extensions to control the
> behavior of PostgreSQL's query planner.

Nah, I won't flame you for that, it's a reasonable thing to think
about.  However, the devil is in the details, and ...

> The attached patch, briefly mentioned above, essentially converts the
> enable_* GUCs into RelOptInfo properties where the defaults are set by
> the corresponding GUCs.

... this doesn't seem like it's moving the football very far at all.
The enable_XXX GUCs are certainly blunt instruments, but I'm not sure
how much better it is if they're per-rel.  For example, I don't see
how this gets us any closer to letting an extension fix a poor choice
of join order.  Or, if your problem is that the planner wants to scan
index A but you want it to scan index B, enable_indexscan won't help.

> ... On the other hand, the more I look at
> what our enable_* GUCs actually do, the less impressed I am. IMHO,
> things like enable_hashjoin make a lot of sense, but enable_sort seems
> like it just controls an absolutely random smattering of behaviors in
> a way that seems to me to have very little to recommend it, and I've
> complained elsewhere about how enable_indexscan and
> enable_indexonlyscan are really quite odd when you look at how they're
> implemented.

Yeah, these sorts of questions aren't made better this way either.
If anything, having extensions manipulating these variables will
make it even harder to rethink what they do.

You mentioned that there is prior art out there, but this proposal
doesn't seem like it's drawing on any such thing.  What ideas should
we be stealing?

            regards, tom lane

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 1:37 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > I'm somewhat expecting to be flamed to a well-done crisp for saying
> > this, but I think we need better ways for extensions to control the
> > behavior of PostgreSQL's query planner.
>
> Nah, I won't flame you for that, it's a reasonable thing to think
> about.  However, the devil is in the details, and ...

Thank you. Not being flamed is one of my favorite things. :-)

> > The attached patch, briefly mentioned above, essentially converts the
> > enable_* GUCs into RelOptInfo properties where the defaults are set by
> > the corresponding GUCs.
>
> ... this doesn't seem like it's moving the football very far at all.
> The enable_XXX GUCs are certainly blunt instruments, but I'm not sure
> how much better it is if they're per-rel.  For example, I don't see
> how this gets us any closer to letting an extension fix a poor choice
> of join order.  Or, if your problem is that the planner wants to scan
> index A but you want it to scan index B, enable_indexscan won't help.

Well, I agree that this doesn't address everything you might want to
do, and I thought I said so, admittedly in the middle of a long wall
of text. This would JUST be a step toward letting an extension control
the scan and join methods, not the join order or the choice of index
or whatever else there is. But the fact that it doesn't do everything
is not a strike against it unless there's some competing design that
lets you take care of everything with a single mechanism, which I do
not see as realistic. If this proposal -- or really any proposal in
this area -- gets through, I will very happily propose more things to
address the other problems that I know about, but it doesn't make
sense to do a huge amount of work to craft a comprehensive solution
before we've had any discussion here.

> Yeah, these sorts of questions aren't made better this way either.
> If anything, having extensions manipulating these variables will
> make it even harder to rethink what they do.

Correct, but my proposal to make enable_indexscan behave like
enable_indexonlyscan, which I thought was a slam-dunk, just provoked a
lot of grumbling. There's a kind of chicken and egg problem here. If
the existing GUCs were better designed, then using them here would
make sense. And the patch that I attached to my previous email were in
master, then cleaning up the design of the GUCs would have more value.
But if I can't make any progress with either problem because the other
problem also exists, then I'm kind of boxed into a corner. I could
also propose something here that is diverges from the enable_*
behavior, but then people will complain that the two shouldn't be
inconsistent, which I agree with, BTW. I thought maybe doing this
first would make sense, and then we could refine afterwards.

> You mentioned that there is prior art out there, but this proposal
> doesn't seem like it's drawing on any such thing.  What ideas should
> we be stealing?

Depends what you mean. As far as PostgreSQL-related things, the two
things that I mentioned in my opening paragraph and for which I
provided links seem to be me to the best examples we have. It's pretty
easy to see how to make pg_hint_plan require less kludgery, and I
think we can just iterate through the various problems there and solve
them pretty easily by adding a few hooks here and there and a few
extension-settable structure members here and there. I am engaging in
some serious hand-waving here, but this is not rocket science. I am
confident that if you made it your top priority to get into PG 18
stuff which would thoroughly un-hackify pg_hint_plan, you could be
done in months, possibly weeks. It will take me longer, but if we have
an agreement in principal that it is worth doing, I just can't see it
as being particularly difficult.

Amazon's query plan management stuff is a much tougher lift. For that,
you're asking the planner to try to create a new plan which is like
some old plan that you got before. So in a perfect world, you want to
control every planner decision. That's hard just because there are a
lot of them. If for example you want to get the same index scan that
you got before, you need not only to get the same type of index scan
(index, index-only, bitmap) and the same index, but also things like
the same non-native saop treatment, which seems like it would be
asking an awful lot of a hook system. On the other hand, maybe you can
cheat. If your regurgitate-the-same-plan system could force the same
join order, join methods, scan methods, choice of indexes, and
probably some stuff about aggregate and appendrel strategy, it might
be close enough to giving you the same plan you had before that nobody
would really care if the non-native saop treatment was different. I'm
almost positive it's better than not having a feature, which is where
are today. And although allowing control over just the major decisions
in query planning doesn't seem like something we can do in one patch,
I don't think it takes 100 patches either. Maybe five or ten.

If we step outside of the PostgreSQL ecosystem, I think we should look
at Oracle as one example. I have never been a real believer in hints
like SeqScan(foo), because if you don't fix the cardinality estimate
for table foo, then the rest of your plan is going to suck, too. On
the other hand, "hint everything" for some people in some situations
is a way to address that. It's stupid in a sense, but if you have an
automated way to do it, especially one that allows applying hints
out-of-query, it's not THAT stupid. Also, Oracle offers some other
pretty useful hints. In particular, using the LEADING hint to set the
driving table for the query plan does not seem dumb to me at all.
Hinting that things should be parallel or not, and with what degree of
parallelism, also seem quite reasonable. They've also got ALL_ROWS and
FIRST_ROWS(n) hints, which let you say whether you want fast-start
behavior or not, and it hardly needs to be said how often we get that
wrong or how badly. pg_hint_plan, which copies a lot of stuff that
Oracle does, innovates by allowing you to hint that a certain join
will return X number of rows or that the number or rows that the
planner thinks should be returned should be corrected by multiplying,
adding, or subtracting some constant. I'm not sure how useful this is
really because I feel like a lot of times you'd just pick some join
order where that particular join is no longer used e.g. if. A JOIN B
JOIN C and I hint the AB join, perhaps the planner will just start by
joining C to either A or B, and then that join will never occur.
However, that can be avoided by also using LEADING, or maybe in some
other cleverer way, like making an AB selectivity hint apply at
whatever point in the plan you join something that includes A to
something that includes B.

There's some details on SQL server's hinting here:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/t-sql/queries/hints-transact-sql?view=sql-server-ver16

It looks pretty complicated, but some of the basic concepts that you'd
expect are also present here: force the join method, rule in or out,
force the use of an index or of no index, force the join order. Those
seem to be the major things that "everyone" supports. I think we'd
want to expand a bit on that to allow forcing aggregate strategy and
perhaps some PostgreSQL-specific things e.g. other systems won't have
a hint to force a TIDRangeScan or not because that's a
PostgreSQL-specific concept, but it would be silly to make a system
that lets an extension control sequential scans and index scans but
not other, more rarely-used ways of scanning a relation, so probably
we want to do something.

I don't know if that helps, in terms of context. If it doesn't, let me
know what would help. And just to be clear, I *absolutely* think we
need to take a light touch here. If we install a ton of new
highly-opinionated infrastructure we will make a lot of people mad and
that's definitely not where I want to end up. I just think we need to
grow beyond "the planner is a black box and you shall not presume to
direct it." If every other system provides a way to control, say, the
join order, then it seems reasonable to suppose that a PostgreSQL
extension should be able to control the join order too. A lot of
details might be different but if multiple other systems have the
concept then the concept itself probably isn't ridiculous.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

On 8/27/24 11:45, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 3:28 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, I agree that this doesn't address everything you might want to
>> do, ... I will very happily propose more things to
>> address the other problems that I know about ...
> 
> In that vein, here's a new patch set where I've added a second patch
> that allows extensions to control choice of index. It's 3 lines of new
> code, plus 7 lines of comments and whitespace. Feeling inspired, I
> also included a contrib module, initial_vowels_are_evil, to
> demonstrate how this can be used by an extension that wants to disable
> certain indexes but not others. This is obviously quite silly and we
> might (or might not) want a more serious example in contrib, but it
> demonstrates how easy this can be with just a tiny bit of core
> infrastructure:
> 
> robert.haas=# load 'initial_vowels_are_evil';
> LOAD
> robert.haas=# explain select count(*) from pgbench_accounts;
>                                                     QUERY PLAN
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Aggregate  (cost=2854.29..2854.30 rows=1 width=8)
>     ->  Index Only Scan using pgbench_accounts_pkey on pgbench_accounts
>   (cost=0.29..2604.29 rows=100000 width=0)
> (2 rows)
> robert.haas=# alter index pgbench_accounts_pkey rename to
> evil_pgbench_accounts_pkey;
> ALTER INDEX
> robert.haas=# explain select count(*) from pgbench_accounts;
>                                    QUERY PLAN
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Aggregate  (cost=2890.00..2890.01 rows=1 width=8)
>     ->  Seq Scan on pgbench_accounts  (cost=0.00..2640.00 rows=100000 width=0)
> (2 rows)
> robert.haas=#


Nice!

On the one hand, excluding indexes by initial vowels is definitely 
silly. On the other, I can see how it might be useful for an extension 
to exclude indexes based on a regex match of the index name or something 
similar, at least for testing.


-- 
Joe Conway
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 11:57 AM Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
> On the one hand, excluding indexes by initial vowels is definitely
> silly. On the other, I can see how it might be useful for an extension
> to exclude indexes based on a regex match of the index name or something
> similar, at least for testing.

Right. I deliberately picked a contrib module that implemented a silly
policy, because what I wanted to demonstrate with it is that this
little bit of infrastructure provides enough mechanism to implement
whatever policy you want. And I think it demonstrates it quite well,
because the whole contrib module to implement this has just 6 lines of
executable code. If you wanted a policy that would be more
realistically useful, you'd need more code, but only however much is
needed to implement your policy. All you need do is replace this
strchr call with something else:

                if (name != NULL && strchr("aeiouAEIOU", name[0]) != NULL)
                        index->disabled = true;

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> In that vein, here's a new patch set where I've added a second patch
> that allows extensions to control choice of index.

I'm minus-several on this bit, because that is a solved problem and
we really don't need to introduce More Than One Way To Do It.  The
intention has always been that get_relation_info_hook can editorialize
on the rel's indexlist by removing entries (or adding fake ones,
in the case of hypothetical-index extensions).  For that matter,
if you really want to do it by modifying the IndexInfo rather than
deleting it from the list, that's already possible: just set
indexinfo->hypothetical = true.

            regards, tom lane

On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 12:56 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > In that vein, here's a new patch set where I've added a second patch
> > that allows extensions to control choice of index.
>
> I'm minus-several on this bit, because that is a solved problem and
> we really don't need to introduce More Than One Way To Do It.  The
> intention has always been that get_relation_info_hook can editorialize
> on the rel's indexlist by removing entries (or adding fake ones,
> in the case of hypothetical-index extensions).  For that matter,
> if you really want to do it by modifying the IndexInfo rather than
> deleting it from the list, that's already possible: just set
> indexinfo->hypothetical = true.

Well, now I'm confused. Just yesterday, in response to the 0001 patch
that allows extensions to exert control over the join strategy, you
complained that "Or, if your problem is that the planner wants to scan
index A but you want it to scan index B, enable_indexscan won't help."
So today, I produced a patch demonstrating how we could address that
issue, and your response is "well, actually we don't need to do
anything about it because that problem is already solved." But if that
is true, then the fact that yesterday's patch did nothing about it was
a feature, not a bug.

Am I missing something here?

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Well, now I'm confused. Just yesterday, in response to the 0001 patch
> that allows extensions to exert control over the join strategy, you
> complained that "Or, if your problem is that the planner wants to scan
> index A but you want it to scan index B, enable_indexscan won't help."

I was just using that to illustrate that making the enable_XXX GUCs
relation-local covers only a small part of the planner-control problem.
You had not, at that point, been very clear that you intended that
patch as only a small part of a solution.

I do think that index selection is pretty well under control already,
thanks to stuff that we put in ages ago at the urging of people who
wanted to write "index advisor" extensions.  (The fact that that
area seems a bit moribund is disheartening, though.  Is it a lack
of documentation?)

            regards, tom lane

On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 2:24 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I was just using that to illustrate that making the enable_XXX GUCs
> relation-local covers only a small part of the planner-control problem.
> You had not, at that point, been very clear that you intended that
> patch as only a small part of a solution.

Ah, OK, apologies for the lack of clarity. I actually think it's a
medium part of the solution. I believe the minimum viable product here
is probably something like:

- control over scan methods
- control over index selection
- control over join methods
- control over join order

It gets a lot better if we also have:

- control over aggregation methods
- something that I'm not quite sure about for appendrels
- control over whether parallelism is used and the degree of parallelism

If control over index selection is already adequate, then the proposed
patch is one way to get about 1/3 of the way to the MVP, which isn't
nothing. Maybe I'm underestimating the amount of stuff that people are
going to want here, but if you look at pg_hint_plan, it isn't doing a
whole lot more than this.

> I do think that index selection is pretty well under control already,
> thanks to stuff that we put in ages ago at the urging of people who
> wanted to write "index advisor" extensions.  (The fact that that
> area seems a bit moribund is disheartening, though.  Is it a lack
> of documentation?)

So a couple of things about this.

First, EDB maintains closed-source index advisor code that uses this
machinery. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, we now have two extensions
that use it. So it's not dead from that point of view, but of course
anything closed-source can't be promoted through community channels.
There's open-source code around too; to my knowledge,
https://github.com/HypoPG/hypopg is the leading open-source
implementation, but my knowledge may very well be incomplete.

Second, I do think that the lack of documentation poses somewhat of a
challenge, and our exchange about whether an IndexOptInfo needs a
disabled flag is perhaps an example of that. To be fair, now that I
look at it, the comment where get_relation_info_hook does say that you
can remove indexes from the index list, so maybe I should have
realized that the problem can be solved that way, but on the other
hand, the comment for set_rel_pathlist_hook claims you can delete
paths from the pathlist, which AFAICS is completely non-viable, so one
can't necessarily rely too much on the comments in this area to learn
what actually does and does not work. Having some in-core examples
showing how to use this stuff correctly and demonstrating its full
power would also be really helpful. Right now, I often find myself
looking at out-of-core code which is sometimes poorly written and
frequently resorts to nasty hacks. It can be hard to determine whether
those nasty hacks are there because they're the only way to implement
some bit of functionality or because the author missed an opportunity
to do better.

Third, I think there's simply a lack of critical mass in terms of our
planner hooks. While the ability to add hypothetical indexes has some
use, the ability to remove indexes from consideration is probably
significantly more useful. But not if it's the only technique for
fixing a bad plan that you have available. Nobody gets excited about a
toolbox that contains just one tool. That's why I'm keen to expand
what can be done cleanly via hooks, and I think if we do that and also
provide either some very good documentation or some well-written
example implementations, we'll get more traction here.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 1:37 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> For example, I don't see
> how this gets us any closer to letting an extension fix a poor choice
> of join order.

Thinking more about this particular sub-problem, let's say we're
joining four tables A, B, C, and D. An extension wants to compel join
order A-B-C-D. Let's suppose, however, that it wants to do this in a
way where planning won't fail if that's impossible, so it wants to use
disabled_nodes rather than skipping path generation entirely.

When we're planning the baserels, we don't need to do anything
special. When we plan 2-way joins, we need to mark all paths disabled
except those originating from the A-B join. When we plan 3-way joins,
we need to mark all paths disabled except those originating from an
(A-B)-C join. When we plan the final 4-way join, we don't really need
to do anything extra: the only way to end up with a non-disabled path
at the top level is to pick a path from the (A-B)-C join and a path
from D.

There's a bit of nuance here, though. Suppose that when planning the
A-B join, the planner generates HashJoin(SeqScan(B),Hash(A)). Does
that path need to be disabled? If you think that join order A-B-C-D
means that table A should be the driving table, then the answer is
yes, because that path will lead to a join order beginning with B-A,
not one beginning with A-B. But you might also have a mental model
where it doesn't matter which side of the table is on which side of
the join, and as long as you start by joining A and B in some way,
that's good enough to qualify as an A-B join order. I believe actual
implementations vary in which approach they take.

I think that the beginning of add_paths_to_joinrel() looks like a
useful spot to get control. You could, for example, have a hook there
which returns a bitmask indicating which of merge-join, nested-loop,
and hash join will be allowable for this call; that hook would then
allow for control over the join method and the join order, and the
join order control is strong enough that you can implement either of
the two interpretations above. This idea theorizes that 0001 was wrong
to make the path mask a per-RelOptInfo value, because there could be
many calls to add_paths_to_joinrel() for a single RelOptInfo and, in
this idea, every one of those can enforce a different mask.

Potentially, such a hook could return additional information, either
by using more bits of the bitmask or by returning other information
via some other data type. For instance, I still believe that
distinguishing between parameterized-nestloops and
unparameterized-nestloops would be real darn useful, so we could have
separate bits for each; or you could have a bit to control whether
foreign-join paths get disabled (or are considered at all), or you
could have separate bits for merge joins that involve 0, 1, or 2
sorts. Whether we need or want any or all of that is certainly
debatable, but the point is that if you did want some of that, or
something else, it doesn't look difficult to feed that information
through to the places where you would need it to be available.

Thoughts?

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Hi,

On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 03:11:15PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Third, I think there's simply a lack of critical mass in terms of our
> planner hooks. While the ability to add hypothetical indexes has some
> use, the ability to remove indexes from consideration is probably
> significantly more useful. 

JFTR, hypopg can also mask away/hide indexes since version 1.4.0:

https://github.com/HypoPG/hypopg/commit/351f14a79daae8ab57339d2367d7f2fc639041f7

I haven't looked closely at the implementation though, and maybe you
meant something else in the above entirely.


Michael

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I believe the minimum viable product here
> is probably something like:

> - control over scan methods
> - control over index selection
> - control over join methods
> - control over join order

Seems reasonable.  It might be possible to say that our answer
to "control over join order" is to provide a hook that can modify
the "joinlist" before it's passed to make_one_rel.  If you want
to force a particular join order you can rearrange that
list-of-lists-of-range-table-indexes to do so.  The thing this
would not give you is control over which rel is picked as outer
in any given join step.  Not sure how critical that bit is.

            regards, tom lane

On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 4:15 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Seems reasonable.  It might be possible to say that our answer
> to "control over join order" is to provide a hook that can modify
> the "joinlist" before it's passed to make_one_rel.  If you want
> to force a particular join order you can rearrange that
> list-of-lists-of-range-table-indexes to do so.  The thing this
> would not give you is control over which rel is picked as outer
> in any given join step.  Not sure how critical that bit is.

This has a big advantage over what I proposed yesterday in that it's
basically declarative. With one call to the hook, you get all the
information about the join order that you could ever want. That's
really nice. However, I don't really think it quite works, partly
because of what you mention here about not being able to control which
rel ends up on which side of the join, which I do think is important,
and also because if the join order isn't possible, planning will fail,
rather than falling back to some other plan shape. If you have an idea
how we could address those things within this same general framework,
I'd be keen to hear it.

It has occurred to me more than once that it might be really useful if
we could attempt to plan under a set of constraints and then, if we
don't end up finding a plan, retry without the constraints. But I
don't quite see how to make it work. When I tried to do that as a
solution to the disable_cost problem, it ended up meaning that once
you couldn't satisfy every constraint perfectly, you gave up on even
trying. I wasn't immediately certain that such behavior was
unacceptable, but I didn't have to look any further than our own
regression test suites to see that it was going to cause a lot of
unhappiness. In this case, if we could attempt join planning with the
user-prescribed join order and then try it again if we fail to find a
path, that would be really cool. Or if we could do all of planning
without generating disabled paths *at all* and then go back and
restart if it becomes clear that's not working out, that would be
slick. But, unless you have a clever idea, that all seems like
advanced magic that should wait until we have basic things working.
Right now, I think we should focus on getting something in place where
we still try all the paths but an extension can arrange for some of
them to be disabled. Then all the right things will happen naturally;
we'll only be leaving some CPU cycles on the table. Which isn't
amazing, but I don't think it's a critical defect either, and we can
try to improve things later if we want to.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 8:37 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> This has a big advantage over what I proposed yesterday in that it's
> basically declarative. With one call to the hook, you get all the
> information about the join order that you could ever want. That's
> really nice.

Hmm. On further thought, I suppose that another disadvantage of this
kind of declarative approach is that there are some kinds of
constraints that you could conceivably want that you just can't
declare, especially negative constraints. For example, imagine we're
joining tables A1 ... A10 and we don't want A1 to be joined directly
to A2. Or suppose you want to insist on a non-bushy plan. I don't
think there's a way to express those types of requirements by frobbing
the joinlist.

I'm not quite sure whether those kinds of gaps are sufficiently
serious that we should worry about them. After all, there's a lot of
things that you can express perfectly clearly with this kind of
scheme. I don't think I know of something that you can do to control
the join order in an existing hinting system that cannot be expressed
as a manipulation of the joinlist. That's not to say that I am 100%
confident that everything everyone could reasonably want to do can be
expressed this way; in fact, I don't think that's true at all. But I
_think_ that all of the things that I know about that people are
actually doing _could_ be expressed this way, but for the
join-direction and hard-failulre problems I mentioned in my earlier
reply.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

On Tue, 2024-08-27 at 15:11 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> - control over scan methods
> - control over index selection
> - control over join methods
> - control over join order

I suggest we split join order into "commutative" and "associative".

The former is both useful and seems relatively easy -- A JOIN B or B
JOIN A (though there's some nuance about when you try to make that
decision).

The latter requires controlling an explosion of possibilities, and
would be an entirely different kind of hook.

Regards,
    Jeff Davis

On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 3:23 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-08-27 at 15:11 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > - control over scan methods
> > - control over index selection
> > - control over join methods
> > - control over join order
>
> I suggest we split join order into "commutative" and "associative".
>
> The former is both useful and seems relatively easy -- A JOIN B or B
> JOIN A (though there's some nuance about when you try to make that
> decision).
>
> The latter requires controlling an explosion of possibilities, and
> would be an entirely different kind of hook.

My proposal in http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZQyVxnRU--4g2bJonJ8RyJqNi2CHpy-=nwwBTNpAj71A@mail.gmail.com
seems like it can cover both cases.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com