Re: InvokeObjectPostAlterHook() vs. CommandCounterIncrement()
От | Ants Aasma |
---|---|
Тема | Re: InvokeObjectPostAlterHook() vs. CommandCounterIncrement() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+CSw_v3Dw18raCrFtOq3uHV3U5MaCxmCzH_K1QuJnakeB=SRQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | InvokeObjectPostAlterHook() vs. CommandCounterIncrement() (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: InvokeObjectPostAlterHook() vs.
CommandCounterIncrement()
Re: InvokeObjectPostAlterHook() vs. CommandCounterIncrement() |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
<p dir="ltr">On Jul 21, 2013 4:06 AM, "Noah Misch" <<a href="mailto:noah@leadboat.com">noah@leadboat.com</a>> wrote:<br/> > If these hooks will need to apply to a larger operation, I<br /> > think that mandates a different meansto reliably expose the before/after<br /> > object states.<p dir="ltr">I haven't checked the code to see how it wouldfit the API, but what about taking a snapshot before altering and passing this to the hook. Would there be other issuesbesides performance? If the snapshot is taken only when there is a hook present then the performance can be fixed later.<pdir="ltr">Regards,<br /> Ants Aasma
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: