Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 12:17:28 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>,
	pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Table rewrite supporting functions for event triggers
Message-ID: <ZuJdSA9U5OmgagbS@paquier.xyz>
References: 
 <CAKAnmmL+Z6j-C8dAx1tVrnBmZJu+BSoc68WSg3sR+CVNjBCqbw@mail.gmail.com>
 <718fcf4a067b576b501bd5b18b54a1fdc4fda639.camel@cybertec.at>
 <CAKAnmm+SfSEg+bmWqT5Q9BSTU3FGaSquVebrQ+8jg3Dq-_1vxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKAnmm+NKVhZMjNN8okbPHXMxSb0Ngqhxgt4hEMGU=RWq9fnKA@mail.gmail.com>
 <c264f34792b17f5bd30133071cfa252919bf5323.camel@cybertec.at>
 <ZuEx_09-ohYExkJG@paquier.xyz>
 <CAKAnmmJ-DXh4QDjS8Aiz8SBxDWrcj1Epq54byb8T_035nTX2JQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pixmfEjAvWsFRK8W"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKAnmmJ-DXh4QDjS8Aiz8SBxDWrcj1Epq54byb8T_035nTX2JQ@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZuJdSA9U5OmgagbS%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--pixmfEjAvWsFRK8W
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 10:14:27AM -0400, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>  I dunno - so would we smush them together and return something like:
>=20
> "ALTER_PERSISTENCE and COLUMN_REWRITE"

If multiple are set, let's just make it text[], then.

> That would be a step backwards for anyone possibly using that integer
> programatically to (for example) give a pretty user-facing message about
> why the event was triggered.

I don't know either how much people are relying on these numbers in
applications.  If this is like what we do in the regression tests and
print it in notice messages within a PL/pgSQL function, that's not
going to matter.

Or just have a separate function..

Do you have a comment about mentioning the variables or the header in
the docs for the stable branches?  I'm aware that this is a rare
practice, but so is this function's design.  My argument is
greppability between the code and the docs, mainly, to not miss an
update of the docs if more reasons are added.  That would be unlikely,
but a backpatch of a reason is not impossible ABI-wise.
--
Michael

--pixmfEjAvWsFRK8W
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEG72nH6vTowiyblFKnvQgOdbyQH0FAmbiXUgACgkQnvQgOdby
QH1+NA//fuxF6Cb2vROPIPJ/T7kQR4MYZYYHpmwD7v40gNebDqgS3aJwZQKL09Xt
03mYRk394JKtQnMYOtH/FlmeugF8459tUcQRC7/HuL16nFJNpp3d9mF6iumGM9Pt
41KvAZidUP0YjICioIXopLlT9Jku9KiKU34BRpmRjl7b/LEH7q15+Yodueh9cEYo
boFewtujscpH47dNjQ6+a/kWaAzNrnye4ml+JtY3tiwNJZPQdugzuWVCoRVKgs3Z
qUkyxrKgTeDc4ptSxNAxYnpD/N6rqHEuU3QmXDAyyah6LG+v4hQP4lL8q92EnUeQ
3VbQuPw6rxZy/ZSYD5xlrEi1Fq9GcSXNJ8RZ2p4zTulN1UHdoDdbguidXaMbxMPE
EEAg4UwRwyuZ8SOxh54VKJIDSfsp+hK+sKScsipf5MWE1K8znnrPh3pZphImxpaR
kctPGNKSjSqBM7kYW9Yf2fqQYyVKdvGoW8QlgApyJh4j5RzOByCOh/L9vIEMgUkU
/s10MRiz+ex2wyEplcnxDdHpb0qfHxVi9pfp329qJJe+Zntz0FeWlB5xmQtjMs/P
HIm+Yi6fXL7KQrKg/m2yLRdnzKaPty/lrXdZUCsmIjy+4QRt7NwLhm5bM4hmEZQe
5otOaxhaIKMs9ipXw6M5tlyu+lriMNJ5mwiTZP1/zFtobGRyUWM=
=aVGh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--pixmfEjAvWsFRK8W--