On Sat, 2008-09-06 at 22:09 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I'm unclear on what you want hooks for. If additional processes get > > integrated into Postgres, those certainly need to get integrated very > > much like we integrated other auxiliary processes. I wouldn't call that > > 'hooking', but YMMV. > > Yea, I am unclear how this is going to work using simple hooks. > > It sounds like Fujii-san is basically saying they can only get the hooks > done for 8.4, not the actual solution. But, as I said above, I am > unclear how a hook solution would even work long-term; I am afraid it > would be thrown away once an integrated solution was developed.
It will be interesting to have various hooks in streaming WAL code to implement various additional features for enterprise integration. But that doesn't mean I support hooks in every/all places. For me, the proposed hook amounts to "we've only got time to implement 2/3 of the required features, so we'd like to circumvent the release cycle by putting in a hook and providing the code later". For me, hooks are for adding additional features, not for making up for the lack of completed code. It's kinda hard to say "we now have WAL streaming" without the streaming bit. We need either a fully working WAL streaming feature, or we wait until next release. We probably need to ask if there is anybody willing to complete the middle part of this feature so we can get it into 8.4. It would be sensible to share the code we have now, so we can see what remains to be implemented. I just committed to delivering Hot Standby for 8.4, so I can't now get involved to deliver this code. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
