Re: GUC for temporarily disabling event triggers

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, Mikhail Gribkov <youzhick@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2023-04-05T22:06:47Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 10:43:23AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> Maybe we should back up and ask why we need more than "on" and "off".
>> If somebody is using this feature in any form more than very
>> occasionally, they should really go home and reconsider their database
>> schema.
> 
> +1 ... this seems perhaps overdesigned.

Yes.  If you begin with an "on"/"off" switch, it could always be
extended later if someone makes a case for it, with a grammar like one
I mentioned upthread, or even something else.  If there is no strong
case for more than a boolean for now, simpler is better.
--
Michael

Commits

  1. Add GUC for temporarily disabling event triggers

  2. Fix typos in code and comments