Tom, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > Isn't the first concern addressed by using SPI..? > > I did not look at the patch yet, but TBH if it uses SPI for sub-operations > of ALTER TABLE I think that is sufficient reason to reject it out of hand.
You mean like what ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY does? > Doing things that way would create way too much of a vulnerability surface > for code touching a partially-updated table. At minimum, we'd have to > blow holes in existing protections like CheckTableNotInUse, and I think > we'd be forever finding other stuff that failed to work quite right in > that context. I do not want ALTER TABLE going anywhere near the planner > or executor; I'm not even happy that it uses the parser (for index > definition reconstruction). That's more along the lines of the kind of response I was expecting given the suggestion, and perhaps a good reason to just go with the index-based lookup, when an index is available to do so with, but I'm not entirely sure how this is different from how we handle foreign keys. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
