Hi, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > Hm. I just noticed a relatively big hole in the patch: The handling of > deletion of dependent objects currently is nonexistant because they don't go > through ProcessUtility...
That's the reason why we're talking about “command triggers” rather than “DDL triggers”. We don't intend to fire the triggers at each DDL operation happening on the server, but for each command. This restriction still allows us to provide a very useful feature when checked against the main use cases we target here. Those are auditing, and replication (the replay will also CASCADEs), and a generic enough SUDO facility (because the trigger function can well be SECURITY DEFINER). We could also add a 'cascading bool' parameter to the trigger function API and have that always false in 9.2, then choose what to fill the other parameters with in a later release. The obvious risk would be to decide that we need another API, then we didn't make a good move after all. My current feeling and vote is thus to leave that alone and document the restriction. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
