On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Repeating the mapping at each checkpoint sounds pretty reasonable and means
> we always know what we need. There's no need to bloat each record with an
> extension name and no need for any kind of ugly global registration. The
> mapping table would be small and simple. I like it.
> Of course, it's all maybe-in-future stuff at this point, but I think that's
> a really good way to approach it.
> There's no way around the fact that user defined redo functions can affect
> reliability. But then, so can user-defined data types, functions, bgworkers,
> plpython functions loading ctypes, plpython functions getting creative in
> the datadir, and admins who paste into the wrong window. The scope for
> problems is somewhat greater but not IMO prohibitively so.

I am in agreement with you on both the merits of this particular thing
and the general principle you are articulating regarding how to think
about these things.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to