On 10/03/2014 08:08 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
Alvaro,
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
There are three fixmes in the code. One can be handled by just removing
the line; we don't really care about duplicating 10 lines of boilerplate
code. The other two mean missing support for domain constraints and for
default ACLs. Is there absolutely no feedback to be had on the
mechanism used by the patch?
Since the patch has had good feedback and no further comments arise, I
can just implement support for those two missing object types and push,
and everybody will be happy. Right?
In general, I'd say yes, but I'll take a look at the patch now and
provide feedback in a couple hours anyway.
Thanks Stephen!
I had a very brief look at the docs, and these extra outputs from
pg_event_trigger_dropped_objects caught my eye:
+ <row>
+ <entry><literal>address_names</literal></entry>
+ <entry><type>text[]</type></entry>
+ <entry>
+ An array that, together with <literal>address_args</literal>,
+ can be used by the C-language function getObjectAddress() to
+ recreate the object address in a remote server containing a similar
object.
+ </entry>
+ </row>
+ <row>
+ <entry><literal>address_args</literal></entry>
+ <entry><type>text[]</type></entry>
+ <entry>
+ See <literal>address_names</literal> above.
+ </entry>
+ </row>
I couldn't find a function called getObjectAddress anywhere. Typo?
Also, is providing a C-language function the best we can do? The rest of
the information returned by pg_event_trigger_dropped_objects is usable
from any language.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
