Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2013-01-17 21:48:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If we're only interested in replication, let's put in some hooks whose
>> contract does not allow for side-effects on the local catalogs, and be
>> done. Otherwise we'll be putting in man-years of unnecessary (or at
>> least unnecessary for this use-case) work.
> Its a thing of perspective I guess. I can't imagine a hook-ey solution,
> without quite a bit of work, that gets enough information to regenerate
> SQL that performs the same action on another system. ISTM that the
> refactoring to make that consistently "easy" is the hard part, but I
> hope I am wrong.
The problem of how to get the information needed is real and large,
I agree. But that's not any easier for a trigger --- if anything,
it's probably harder, because then you not only need to *get* the
information but you have to figure out how to provide it in a way
that makes sense at SQL level.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
