MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CANbhV-E4pTWeF-DsdaGsOrjJNFWPaR+Dstjrnkqvf9JFFgOKKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <f781f8f198567cee9e3776487bab3e41a7b91b82.camel@j-davis.com>
 <20220512034010.4oqa76pasrulkw32@alap3.anarazel.de> <CANbhV-G7SfdRLR6r7sxY0uL=TRU0S=cxkWJGWyTdss3u8LFK=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220512234207.pwwp6q33f72byet2@alap3.anarazel.de> <CANbhV-FFgAFeNZ=qNc7Fr991Asym+sfj=R5hb02XeRE6067=hg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABm2Ma7v4=W-1vH=kiA4M352F=Nd-Nvd_QBZufJ6EMGsS7Q-_A@mail.gmail.com> <0892cd00635c8bcd458de6d43d31cf61953da1b2.camel@j-davis.com>
In-Reply-To: <0892cd00635c8bcd458de6d43d31cf61953da1b2.camel@j-davis.com>
From: Danil Anisimow <anisimow.d@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 21:47:57 +0700
Message-ID: <CABm2Ma5Hi9PU_wWP0f=YFu9aDDdeSdX2+JFDL_oDH-QHgexsgg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Comments on Custom RMGRs
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, 
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000004f9840612865959"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABm2Ma5Hi9PU_wWP0f%3DYFu9aDDdeSdX2%2BJFDL_oDH-QHgexsgg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

--00000000000004f9840612865959
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 2:56=E2=80=AFAM Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrot=
e:
> Let's pick this discussion back up, then. Where should the hook go?
> Does it need to be broken into phases like resource owners? What
> guidance can we provide to extension authors to use it correctly?
>
> Simon's right that these things don't need to be 100% answered for
> every hook we add; but I agree with Andres and Robert that this could
> benefit from some more discussion about the details.
>
> The proposal calls the hook right after CheckPointPredicate() and
> before CheckPointBuffers(). Is that the right place for the use case
> you have in mind with pg_stat_statements?

Hello!

Answering your questions might take some time as I want to write a sample
patch for pg_stat_statements and make some tests.
What do you think about putting the patch to commitfest as it closing in a
few hours?

--
Regards,
Daniil Anisimov
Postgres Professional: http://postgrespro.com

--00000000000004f9840612865959
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 2:56=E2=80=AFAM Jeff Davis &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:pgsql@j-davis.com">pgsql@j-davis.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>&gt; =
Let&#39;s pick this discussion back up, then. Where should the hook go?<br>=
&gt; Does it need to be broken into phases like resource owners? What<br>&g=
t; guidance can we provide to extension authors to use it correctly?<br>&gt=
;<br>&gt; Simon&#39;s right that these things don&#39;t need to be 100% ans=
wered for<br>&gt; every hook we add; but I agree with Andres and Robert tha=
t this could<br>&gt; benefit from some more discussion about the details.<b=
r>&gt;<br>&gt; The proposal calls the hook right after CheckPointPredicate(=
) and<br>&gt; before CheckPointBuffers(). Is that the right place for the u=
se case<br>&gt; you have in mind with pg_stat_statements?<br><br>Hello!<br>=
<br>Answering your questions might take some time as I want to write a samp=
le patch for pg_stat_statements and make some tests.<br>What do you think a=
bout putting the patch to commitfest as it closing in a few hours?<br><br>-=
-<br>Regards,<br>Daniil Anisimov<br>Postgres Professional: <a href=3D"http:=
//postgrespro.com">http://postgrespro.com</a></div>

--00000000000004f9840612865959--