Re: oat_post_create expected behavior

> Right, same thing I'm saying.  I also think we should discourage
> people from doing cowboy CCIs inside their OAT hooks, because that
> makes the testability problem even worse.  Maybe that means we
> need to uniformly move the CREATE hooks to after a system-provided
> CCI, but I've not thought hard about the implications of that.

I like this approach, however, I am relatively new to the PG scene and
am not sure how or what I should look into in terms of the
implications that Tom mentioned. Are there any tips? What should be
the next course of action here? I could update my patch to always call
CCI before the create hooks.

Thanks,

Mary Xu

On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 11:12 AM Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2022-06-06 at 17:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Right, same thing I'm saying.  I also think we should discourage
> > people from doing cowboy CCIs inside their OAT hooks, because that
> > makes the testability problem even worse.  Maybe that means we
> > need to uniformly move the CREATE hooks to after a system-provided
> > CCI, but I've not thought hard about the implications of that.
>
> Uniformly moving the post-create hooks after CCI might not be as
> convenient as I thought at first. Many extensions using post-create
> hooks will also want to use post-alter hooks, and it would be difficult
> to reuse extension code between those two hooks. It's probably better
> to just always specify the snapshot unless you're sure you won't need a
> post-alter hook.
>
> It would be nice if it was easier to enforce that these hooks do the
> right thing, though.
>
> Regards,
>         Jeff Davis
>
>