Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why does this patch #ifdef out the _PG_fini code in pg_stat_statements?
That's because _PG_fini is never called in current releases. We could remove it completely, but I'd like to leave it for future releases where _PG_fini callback is re-enabled. Or, removing #ifdef (enabling _PG_fini function) is also harmless. > Where you check for INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE return codes in > pgss_ProcessUtility, I think this deserves a comment explaining that > these could occur as a result of EXECUTE. It wasn't obvious to me, > anyway. Like this? /* * Parse command tag to retrieve the number of affected rows. * COPY command returns COPY tag. EXECUTE command might return INSERT, * UPDATE, or DELETE tags, but we cannot retrieve the number of rows * for SELECT. We assume other commands always return 0 row. */ > It seems to me that the current hook placement does not address this complaint > >> I don't see why the hook function should have the ability to > >> editorialize on the behavior of everything about ProcessUtility > >> *except* the read-only-xact check. I moved the initialization code of completionTag as the comment, but check_xact_readonly() should be called before the hook. Am I missing something? Regards, --- Takahiro Itagaki NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
