From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr>,
	Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Event Triggers: adding information
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+TgmobaEsXomLihUy4KgTNqz95mf8S3bN3Lcs5oEddPpTkPew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <m2ehhjbf48.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr>
	<20130118013334.GE3074@awork2.anarazel.de>
	<CA+TgmobU2xZ7hPh24HYmvSxO7kbXUtY57bePX+mpB5aywTz2HA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130118140721.GA29501@alap2.anarazel.de>
	<CA+TgmoYL9o2MBjWdaUcRqj_B5J=k63rq8vKkcszDyH4CDT1AKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130118154732.GE29501@alap2.anarazel.de>
	<CA+Tgmoa-p-texRBzgetFgvaKwWJJ=a3XBCWMOQdg17aWtrDPNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130118170857.GK29501@alap2.anarazel.de>
	<10183.1358531053@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20130118180326.GM29501@alap2.anarazel.de>
	<20130118182255.GG4063@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<11782.1358535557@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+TgmobaEsXomLihUy4KgTNqz95mf8S3bN3Lcs5oEddPpTkPew@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:41:31 -0500"
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:12:49 -0500
Message-ID: <4373.1358547169@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Well, that burden already exists for non-utility statements --- why
>> should utility statements get a pass?  Other than that we tend to invent
>> new utility syntax freely, which might be a good thing to discourage
>> anyhow.

> My concerns are that (1) it will slow down the addition of new
> features to PostgreSQL by adding yet another barrier to commit and (2)
> it won't be get enough use or regression test coverage to be, or
> remain, bug-free.

Meh.  The barriers to inventing new statements are already mighty tall.
As for (2), I agree there's risk of bugs, but what alternative have you
got that is likely to be less bug-prone?  At least a reverse-list
capability could be tested standalone without having to set up a logical
replication configuration.

This should not be interpreted as saying I'm gung-ho to do this, mind
you.  I'm just saying that if our intention is to support logical
replication of all DDL operations, none of the alternatives look cheap.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers