Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add sql_drop event for event triggers
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add sql_drop event for event triggers |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2768.1365523654@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add sql_drop event for event triggers (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add sql_drop event for event triggers
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add sql_drop event for event triggers |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote: > Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr> writes: >> What about splitting the big switch statement into two of them? The >> first one for transaction control statements, and then the other bigger >> one. > Sounds like considerable uglification to fix a performance issue that's > entirely hypothetical... let's see some numbers that prove it's worth > worrying about before we do that. Actually ... wait a moment. That does have some attraction independent of performance questions, because what Alvaro suggested requires knowing which commands support command triggers in two places. Perhaps with some refactoring we could end up with no net addition of cruft. Personally, I'd really like to see the InvokeDDLCommandEventTriggers macros go away; that's not a coding style I find nice. If we had a separate switch containing just the event-supporting calls, we could drop that in favor of one invocation of the trigger stuff before and after the switch. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: