Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > I think it's fairly obvious that > (1) dealing with a DROP only after it's happened is pretty limiting; > (2) allowing user-defined code to run mid-command is dangerous. > What's at issue is the tradeoff we make between these inescapable > facts, and I'm not sure if we can get consensus on that. > > On the whole, though, I'm thinking that the approach Robert suggests > is the way to go, because it doesn't foreclose our doing something > else later. Whereas if we ship 9.3 with a mid-DROP event, and we then > find out that it's even more dangerous than we currently realize, > we're going to be between a rock and a hard place.
The good news is that the patch to do that has already been sent on this list, and got reviewed in details by Álvaro who did offer incremental changes. Version 3 of that patch is to be found in: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/m2fw19n1hr....@2ndquadrant.fr 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
