On Sep 30, 2010, at 9:01 PM, KaiGai Kohei <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com> wrote: > (2010/10/01 3:09), Robert Haas wrote: >> 2010/9/29 KaiGai Kohei<kai...@ak.jp.nec.com>: >>> In addition, I want to give these entrypoints its name which >>> represents an appropriate purpose of the hook, rather than >>> a uniformed one. >> >> It sounds like you're proposing to create a vast number of hooks >> rather than just one. If we have ~20 object types in the system, >> that's 40 hooks just for create and drop, and then many more to handle >> comment, alter (perhaps in various flavors), etc. I'm pretty >> unexcited about that. The main hook function can always dispatch >> internally if it so desires, but I don't see any benefit to forcing >> people to write the code that way. >> > What I proposed is to create just one hook and wrapper functions > with appropriate name; that calls the hook with appropriate parameters, > such as SearchSysCache1, 2, 3 and 4.
Seems like you'd end up creating a lot of macros that were only used once. > BTW, as an aside, the SearchSysCacheX() interface also inspired me. > If the hook function can deliver a few Datum values depending on object > types and event types, it may allows the main hook to handle most of > security checks, even if we need to add various flavors. Good idea. Let's leave that out for the first version of this, though. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers