Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Patch for 8.5, transformationHook

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Patch for 8.5, transformationHook
Date: 2009-07-25 22:00:20
Message-ID: 16060.1248559220@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I think we should apply the same criteria to this that we
> have to some other patches that have been rejected (like the
> extensible-rmgr patch Simon submitted for CommitFest 2008-11), namely,
> requiring that the extension mechanism be submitted together with at
> least two examples of how it can be used to interesting and useful
> things, bundled as one or more contrib modules.

I wouldn't necessarily insist on actual contrib modules.  But fully
worked-out example uses would certainly go a long way toward proving
that the hook is good for something.  In previous cases we've sometimes
found out that a proposed hook definition isn't quite right after we
try to use it.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-07-25 22:12:20
Subject: Re: autogenerating headers & bki stuff
Previous:From: Greg StarkDate: 2009-07-25 21:57:37
Subject: Re: autogenerating headers & bki stuff

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group