Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> writes: > I still don't see any point in trying to pass data back from the hooks > as the extension can maintain that state just fine, although it looks > like it would be pretty trivial to do using a new void* member added to > role_auth_extra. Tom (or anyone else), any comment on that?
The point of packaging GUC-related state into a blob that guc.c knows about is that then the right things will happen when guc.c handles something like a SET LOCAL, GUC reversion at subtransaction rollback, SET clauses attached to functions, yadda yadda. Are you sure your extension can, or wants to, track all those possibilities for itself? I remember thinking that we probably would need to extend role_auth_extra to make this work, so I have no objection if you're finding that that's actually the case. Might need to think about how more than one hook could include state into the blob. (Note: I've not actually read this version of your patch, although I could make time for that next week sometime.) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers