On Tue, 2022-08-02 at 13:30 -0700, Mary Xu wrote:
> > Right, same thing I'm saying. I also think we should discourage
> > people from doing cowboy CCIs inside their OAT hooks, because that
> > makes the testability problem even worse. Maybe that means we
> > need to uniformly move the CREATE hook
> Right, same thing I'm saying. I also think we should discourage
> people from doing cowboy CCIs inside their OAT hooks, because that
> makes the testability problem even worse. Maybe that means we
> need to uniformly move the CREATE hooks to after a system-provided
> CCI, but I've not thought h
On Mon, 2022-06-06 at 17:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Right, same thing I'm saying. I also think we should discourage
> people from doing cowboy CCIs inside their OAT hooks, because that
> makes the testability problem even worse. Maybe that means we
> need to uniformly move the CREATE hooks to af
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 1:35 PM Jeff Davis wrote:
>> Out of curiosity, why not? The proposed patch only runs it if the
>> object access hook is set. Do you see a situation where it would be
>> confusing that an earlier DDL change is visible? And if so, would it
>> make more s
On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 3:46 PM Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-06-06 at 13:43 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Yeah, that comment could be made more clear.
>
> I still don't understand what the rule is.
>
> Is the rule that OAT_POST_CREATE must always use SnapshotSelf for any
> catalog access? And i
On Mon, 2022-06-06 at 13:43 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Yeah, that comment could be made more clear.
I still don't understand what the rule is.
Is the rule that OAT_POST_CREATE must always use SnapshotSelf for any
catalog access? And if so, do we need to update code in contrib
extensions to follo
On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 1:35 PM Jeff Davis wrote:
> Out of curiosity, why not? The proposed patch only runs it if the
> object access hook is set. Do you see a situation where it would be
> confusing that an earlier DDL change is visible? And if so, would it
> make more sense to call CCI unconditio
On Mon, 2022-06-06 at 10:51 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I don't think a proposal to add CommandCounterIncrement() calls just
> for the convenience of object access hooks has much chance of being
> accepted.
Out of curiosity, why not? The proposed patch only runs it if the
object access hook is set
On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 6:37 PM Mary Xu wrote:
> I was using an object access hook for oat_post_create access while creating
> an extension and expected that I would be able to query for the newly created
> extension with get_extension_oid(), but it was returning InvalidOid. However,
> the same
Hello,
I was using an object access hook for oat_post_create access while creating
an extension and expected that I would be able to query for the newly
created extension with get_extension_oid(), but it was returning
InvalidOid. However, the same process works for triggers, so I was
wondering wha
10 matches
Mail list logo
