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.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: