> Right, same thing I'm saying. I also think we should discourage > people from doing cowboy CCIs inside their OAT hooks, because that > makes the testability problem even worse. Maybe that means we > need to uniformly move the CREATE hooks to after a system-provided > CCI, but I've not thought hard about the implications of that.
I like this approach, however, I am relatively new to the PG scene and am not sure how or what I should look into in terms of the implications that Tom mentioned. Are there any tips? What should be the next course of action here? I could update my patch to always call CCI before the create hooks. Thanks, Mary Xu On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 11:12 AM Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2022-06-06 at 17:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Right, same thing I'm saying. I also think we should discourage > > people from doing cowboy CCIs inside their OAT hooks, because that > > makes the testability problem even worse. Maybe that means we > > need to uniformly move the CREATE hooks to after a system-provided > > CCI, but I've not thought hard about the implications of that. > > Uniformly moving the post-create hooks after CCI might not be as > convenient as I thought at first. Many extensions using post-create > hooks will also want to use post-alter hooks, and it would be difficult > to reuse extension code between those two hooks. It's probably better > to just always specify the snapshot unless you're sure you won't need a > post-alter hook. > > It would be nice if it was easier to enforce that these hooks do the > right thing, though. > > Regards, > Jeff Davis > >