Anyone remember this patch?

http://gorda.di.uminho.pt/community/pgsqlhooks/

The discussion seems to be pretty minimal:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-06/msg00859.php

Does anyone see a need to investigate it further?

Chris

Search Discussions

  • Tom Lane at Dec 8, 2005 at 4:24 am

    Christopher Kings-Lynne writes:
    Anyone remember this patch?
    http://gorda.di.uminho.pt/community/pgsqlhooks/
    The discussion seems to be pretty minimal:
    http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-06/msg00859.php
    Does anyone see a need to investigate it further?
    I had hoped to see some comments from the Slony people about it.
    I'd feel better about the validity of a set of hooks if more than
    one project agreed that it was useful/appropriate ...

    regards, tom lane
  • Pmagnoli at Dec 8, 2005 at 11:19 am
    I can only add that patched code did not build on windows, contacted author
    about that and never got an answer back.
    Regards

    paolo

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> ha scritto
    Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
    Anyone remember this patch?
    http://gorda.di.uminho.pt/community/pgsqlhooks/
    The discussion seems to be pretty minimal:
    http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-06/msg00859.php
    Does anyone see a need to investigate it further?
    I had hoped to see some comments from the Slony people about it.
    I'd feel better about the validity of a set of hooks if more than
    one project agreed that it was useful/appropriate ...

    regards, tom lane

    ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
    TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
    choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
    match
  • Alfranio Correia Junior at Jan 3, 2006 at 7:15 pm
    I fixed the patch and now it compiles in windows.
    The first one did not compile because there were some problems in the
    Makefile.
    It is currently available for download at
    http://gorda.di.uminho.pt/community/pgsqlhooks/.

    Regards,

    Alfranio
  • Darcy Buskermolen at Dec 8, 2005 at 4:33 pm

    On Wednesday 07 December 2005 20:24, Tom Lane wrote:
    Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
    Anyone remember this patch?
    http://gorda.di.uminho.pt/community/pgsqlhooks/
    The discussion seems to be pretty minimal:
    http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-06/msg00859.php
    Does anyone see a need to investigate it further?
    I had hoped to see some comments from the Slony people about it.
    I'd feel better about the validity of a set of hooks if more than
    one project agreed that it was useful/appropriate ...
    I missed seeing it all together the first time through, I'll see what I can do
    about taking a indepth look at it over the next few days and provide some
    feedback.
    regards, tom lane

    ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
    TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
    choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
    match
    --
    Darcy Buskermolen
    Wavefire Technologies Corp.

    http://www.wavefire.com
    ph: 250.717.0200
    fx: 250.763.1759
  • Jim C. Nasby at Dec 8, 2005 at 7:05 pm

    On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 08:33:59AM -0800, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
    On Wednesday 07 December 2005 20:24, Tom Lane wrote:
    Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
    Anyone remember this patch?
    http://gorda.di.uminho.pt/community/pgsqlhooks/
    The discussion seems to be pretty minimal:
    http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-06/msg00859.php
    Does anyone see a need to investigate it further?
    I had hoped to see some comments from the Slony people about it.
    I'd feel better about the validity of a set of hooks if more than
    one project agreed that it was useful/appropriate ...
    I missed seeing it all together the first time through, I'll see what I can do
    about taking a indepth look at it over the next few days and provide some
    feedback.
    While this code might be useful, whouldn't it be much more valuable to
    provide hooks into xlog so that we could do non-trigger-based
    replication? (As well as non-trigger-based materialized views...)
    --
    Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
    Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
    vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
  • Jonah H. Harris at Dec 8, 2005 at 7:32 pm

    On 12/8/05, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
    While this code might be useful, whouldn't it be much more valuable to
    provide hooks into xlog so that we could do non-trigger-based
    replication? (As well as non-trigger-based materialized views...)
    If we're going to do hooks for replication, I think we should look at
    including xlog. Trigger-based replication is an OLTP performance killer if
    you're just looking to do async replication.
  • Jan Wieck at Dec 8, 2005 at 7:35 pm

    On 12/8/2005 2:05 PM, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
    On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 08:33:59AM -0800, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
    On Wednesday 07 December 2005 20:24, Tom Lane wrote:
    Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
    Anyone remember this patch?
    http://gorda.di.uminho.pt/community/pgsqlhooks/
    The discussion seems to be pretty minimal:
    http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-06/msg00859.php
    Does anyone see a need to investigate it further?
    I had hoped to see some comments from the Slony people about it.
    I'd feel better about the validity of a set of hooks if more than
    one project agreed that it was useful/appropriate ...
    I missed seeing it all together the first time through, I'll see what I can do
    about taking a indepth look at it over the next few days and provide some
    feedback.
    While this code might be useful, whouldn't it be much more valuable to
    provide hooks into xlog so that we could do non-trigger-based
    replication? (As well as non-trigger-based materialized views...)
    I don't see why these would be mutually exclusive. A generic API needs
    to have them all.

    Without having looked at the patch yet, what I expect from an API is
    that the backend will (after initialization and becoming a member of a
    database) check if this database is replicated. If so load the specific
    shared object that implement the backend part of the replication system
    and then call an init() function in that. This init() function then will
    add callbacks to all the hooks where this particular replication system
    wants to be called. So one replication system might want to be called on
    commit, just before writing the WAL record, some other system doesn't
    care about that, but wants to see the WAL record after it was written.


    Jan

    --
    #======================================================================#
    # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
    # Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
    #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
  • Jonah H. Harris at Dec 8, 2005 at 8:20 pm
    True, I think we need hooks for both methods.
    On 12/8/05, Jan Wieck wrote:
    On 12/8/2005 2:05 PM, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
    On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 08:33:59AM -0800, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
    On Wednesday 07 December 2005 20:24, Tom Lane wrote:
    Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
    Anyone remember this patch?
    http://gorda.di.uminho.pt/community/pgsqlhooks/
    The discussion seems to be pretty minimal:
    http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-06/msg00859.php
    Does anyone see a need to investigate it further?
    I had hoped to see some comments from the Slony people about it.
    I'd feel better about the validity of a set of hooks if more than
    one project agreed that it was useful/appropriate ...
    I missed seeing it all together the first time through, I'll see what I
    can do
    about taking a indepth look at it over the next few days and provide
    some
    feedback.
    While this code might be useful, whouldn't it be much more valuable to
    provide hooks into xlog so that we could do non-trigger-based
    replication? (As well as non-trigger-based materialized views...)
    I don't see why these would be mutually exclusive. A generic API needs
    to have them all.

    Without having looked at the patch yet, what I expect from an API is
    that the backend will (after initialization and becoming a member of a
    database) check if this database is replicated. If so load the specific
    shared object that implement the backend part of the replication system
    and then call an init() function in that. This init() function then will
    add callbacks to all the hooks where this particular replication system
    wants to be called. So one replication system might want to be called on
    commit, just before writing the WAL record, some other system doesn't
    care about that, but wants to see the WAL record after it was written.


    Jan

    --
    #======================================================================#
    # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
    # Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
    #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #

    ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
    TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
  • Jan Wieck at Dec 8, 2005 at 7:24 pm

    On 12/7/2005 11:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

    Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
    Anyone remember this patch?
    http://gorda.di.uminho.pt/community/pgsqlhooks/
    The discussion seems to be pretty minimal:
    http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-06/msg00859.php
    Does anyone see a need to investigate it further?
    I had hoped to see some comments from the Slony people about it.
    I'd feel better about the validity of a set of hooks if more than
    one project agreed that it was useful/appropriate ...
    I am going to look into this in the next couple of days.


    Jan

    --
    #======================================================================#
    # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
    # Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
    #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
  • Dann Corbit at Dec 8, 2005 at 7:33 pm
    A general purpose log miner is also useful in many other areas besides
    replication.



    ________________________________

    From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
    On Behalf Of Jonah H. Harris
    Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 11:32 AM
    To: Jim C. Nasby
    Cc: Darcy Buskermolen; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tom Lane;
    Christopher Kings-Lynne
    Subject: Re: [HACKERS] HOOKS for Synchronous Replication?



    On 12/8/05, Jim C. Nasby wrote:

    While this code might be useful, whouldn't it be much more
    valuable to
    provide hooks into xlog so that we could do non-trigger-based
    replication? (As well as non-trigger-based materialized
    views...)


    If we're going to do hooks for replication, I think we should look at
    including xlog. Trigger-based replication is an OLTP performance killer
    if you're just looking to do async replication.

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
categoriespostgresql
postedDec 8, '05 at 2:38a
activeJan 3, '06 at 7:15p
posts11
users9
websitepostgresql.org...
irc#postgresql

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase