Horton

Re: ProcessUtility_hook

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2009-12-10T02:15:17Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Why does this patch #ifdef out the _PG_fini code in pg_stat_statements?

Where you check for INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE return codes in
pgss_ProcessUtility, I think this deserves a comment explaining that
these could occur as a result of EXECUTE.  It wasn't obvious to me,
anyway.

It seems to me that the current hook placement does not address this complaint

>> 1. The placement of the hook.  Why is it three lines down in
>> ProcessUtility?  It's probably reasonable to have the Assert first,
>> but I don't see why the hook function should have the ability to
>> editorialize on the behavior of everything about ProcessUtility
>> *except* the read-only-xact check.

...Robert