On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Repeating the mapping at each checkpoint sounds pretty reasonable and means > we always know what we need. There's no need to bloat each record with an > extension name and no need for any kind of ugly global registration. The > mapping table would be small and simple. I like it. > > Of course, it's all maybe-in-future stuff at this point, but I think that's > a really good way to approach it. > > There's no way around the fact that user defined redo functions can affect > reliability. But then, so can user-defined data types, functions, bgworkers, > plpython functions loading ctypes, plpython functions getting creative in > the datadir, and admins who paste into the wrong window. The scope for > problems is somewhat greater but not IMO prohibitively so.
I am in agreement with you on both the merits of this particular thing and the general principle you are articulating regarding how to think about these things. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
