Dimitri Fontaine escribió: > 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.
Mmm. > > 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. Makes sense. > 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 As I recall there were a few more fixes I wanted to do on top of that patch. I will see about that. Thanks for the pointer. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
