Received: from makus.postgresql.org (makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 733CC176E18C for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2012 15:19:07 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.anarazel.de ([217.115.131.40]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S8yDZ-000098-Sq for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sat, 17 Mar 2012 18:19:06 +0000 Received: by mail.anarazel.de (Postfix, from userid 108) id 104B2450006; Sat, 17 Mar 2012 19:18:51 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on mail X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Received: from anarazel.de (brln-d9bad38a.pool.mediaWays.net [217.186.211.138]) (Authenticated sender: andres@anarazel.de) by mail.anarazel.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 114F5448003; Sat, 17 Mar 2012 19:16:28 +0100 (CET) Received: by anarazel.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1061D1C00AB; Sat, 17 Mar 2012 19:16:26 +0100 (CET) From: Andres Freund To: Tom Lane Subject: Re: Command Triggers, patch v11 Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 19:16:26 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.3.0-rc3-andres-00278-g4903062; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; ) Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Thom Brown , Dimitri Fontaine References: <7094.1331996567@sss.pgh.pa.us> <9503.1332006327@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <9503.1332006327@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201203171916.26869.andres@anarazel.de> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Archive-Number: 201203/1156 X-Sequence-Number: 205038 On Saturday, March 17, 2012 06:45:27 PM Tom Lane wrote: > I'm not sure that anybody cares about being able to fire command > triggers on DECLARE CURSOR I actually think it would make sense to explicitly not fire command triggers there given that DECLARE CURSOR actually potentially is somewhat performance relevant. > , but just from a consistency standpoint it > would make sense for this to work more like EXPLAIN and CREATE TABLE AS. > So that convinces me that UtilityContainsQuery() would be a good thing, > and I'll add that to the patch. (Actually changing DECLARE CURSOR seems > like a separate patch, though.) Aggreed on that. Andres