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
-
Add GUC for temporarily disabling event triggers
- 7750fefdb2b8 17.0 landed
-
Fix typos in code and comments
- 5f6401f81cb2 16.0 cited