On 2020-May-23, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 09:32:55AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Thanks for the input, Robert. So, even if we are post-beta1 it looks
> > like there are more upsides than downsides to get that stuff done
> > sooner than later. I propose to get that
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 09:32:55AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Thanks for the input, Robert. So, even if we are post-beta1 it looks
> like there are more upsides than downsides to get that stuff done
> sooner than later. I propose to get that applied in the next couple
> of days, please let
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 01:57:31PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I don't really see any reason why this couldn't be committed even at
> this late date, but I also don't care that much. I suspect the number
> of extension authors who are likely to have to make any code changes
> is small. It's
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:40 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> Okay. Any other opinions? I am in a 50/50 state about that stuff.
I don't really see any reason why this couldn't be committed even at
this late date, but I also don't care that much. I suspect the number
of extension authors who are
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 01:32:31PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I think it's fine to put this in at this time. It's not a new feature.
> The only thing this needs is to go through a new release cycle so that
> people can adjust to the new hook invocations as necessary.
Okay. Any other
On 2020-Apr-20, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Unfortunately, we are past feature freeze so this will have to wait
> until v14 opens for business to be merged, and I'll take care of it.
> Or would others prefer to not wait one extra year for those changes to
> be released?
I think it's fine to put
> On Apr 19, 2020, at 3:55 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:47:46AM -0700, Mark Dilger wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 2020, at 11:30 AM, Mark Dilger
>> wrote:
>>> Will post v3 shortly.
>
> Thanks for sending a new version of the patch and removing the bits
> about object
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:47:46AM -0700, Mark Dilger wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2020, at 11:30 AM, Mark Dilger
> wrote:
>> Will post v3 shortly.
Thanks for sending a new version of the patch and removing the bits
about object drops. Your additions to src/backend/ look fine to me,
so I have no
> On Mar 19, 2020, at 11:30 AM, Mark Dilger
> wrote:
>
> Will post v3 shortly.
v3-0001-Adding-missing-Object-Access-hook-invocations.patch
Description: Binary data
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> On Mar 19, 2020, at 11:17 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2020-Mar-18, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
>> Here is the latest patch.
>
> So you insist in keeping the Drop hook calls?
My apologies, not at all. I appear to have attached the wrong patch. Will
post v3 shortly.
—
Mark Dilger
On 2020-Mar-18, Mark Dilger wrote:
> Here is the latest patch.
So you insist in keeping the Drop hook calls?
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
> On Mar 17, 2020, at 9:33 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 12:39:35PM -0700, Mark Dilger wrote:
>> I agree that this does not need to be back-patched. I was debating
>> whether it constitutes a bug for the purpose of putting the fix into
>> v13 vs. punting the patch
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 12:39:35PM -0700, Mark Dilger wrote:
> I agree that this does not need to be back-patched. I was debating
> whether it constitutes a bug for the purpose of putting the fix into
> v13 vs. punting the patch forward to the v14 cycle. I don't have a
> strong opinion on that.
> On Mar 17, 2020, at 11:49 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2020-03-16 16:03:51 -0700, Mark Dilger wrote:
>> While working on object access hooks, I noticed several locations
>> where I would expect the hook to be invoked, but no actual invocation.
>> I think this just barely qualifies as a
Hi,
On 2020-03-16 16:03:51 -0700, Mark Dilger wrote:
> While working on object access hooks, I noticed several locations
> where I would expect the hook to be invoked, but no actual invocation.
> I think this just barely qualifies as a bug. It's debatable because
> whether it is a bug depends on
> On Mar 16, 2020, at 5:14 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2020-Mar-16, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
>> Hackers,
>>
>> While working on object access hooks, I noticed several locations where I
>> would expect the hook to be invoked, but no actual invocation. I think this
>> just barely
On 2020-Mar-16, Mark Dilger wrote:
> Hackers,
>
> While working on object access hooks, I noticed several locations where I
> would expect the hook to be invoked, but no actual invocation. I think this
> just barely qualifies as a bug. It's debatable because whether it is a bug
> depends on
Hackers,
While working on object access hooks, I noticed several locations where I would
expect the hook to be invoked, but no actual invocation. I think this just
barely qualifies as a bug. It's debatable because whether it is a bug depends
on the user's expectations and whether not
18 matches
Mail list logo
