Thanks for your reviewing, and sorry for the late reply. I've not been available for a few days.
(2010/11/22 12:11), Robert Haas wrote: > 2010/11/12 KaiGai Kohei<kai...@ak.jp.nec.com>: >> (2010/11/12 19:34), KaiGai Kohei wrote: >>> I revised my patch according to the prior suggestions. >>> >> I'm sorry. I revised my patch, but not attached. >> >> Please see this attached one. > > I'm satisfied with this approach, although I intend to change > InvokeObjectAccessHook0 to simply InvokeObjectAccessHook before > committing it; OK. We have no other object-access-type which takes any arguments right now. It is quite cosmetic things, so we may be able to add the number of arguments later, such as SysCache. > and correct your use of AttributeRelationId to > RelationRelationId for consistency with the rest of the code. Oops, it was my bug. I'll fix it. > What > I'm not quite sure about is where to put the definitions you've added > to a new file utils/hooks.h; I don't feel that's a very appropriate > location. It's tempting to put them in utils/acl.h just because this > is vaguely access-control related and that header is already included > in most of the right places, but maybe that's too much of a stretch; > or perhaps catalog/catalog.h, although that doesn't feel quite right > either. If we are going to add a new header file, I still don't like > utils/hooks.h much - it's considerably more generic than can be > justified by its contents. > I don't think utils/acl.h is long-standing right place, because we intended not to restrict the purpose of this hooks to access controls as you mentioned. I think somewhere under the catalog/ directory is a good idea because it hooks events that user wants (eventually) to modify system catalogs. How about catalog/hooks.h, instead of utils/hooks.h? Thanks, -- KaiGai Kohei <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
