Re: libpq object hooks

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com>
Subject: Re: libpq object hooks
Date: 2008-05-14 14:44:31
Message-ID: 19342.1210776271@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> It should be noted that while this feels slightly foreign, it isn't
> hugely invasive, unlike the previous effort - it's only a few hundred
> lines of new code.

> If we reject this, presumably the authors will have no alternative than
> to offer libpqtypes as a patch to libpq.

No, they could revise their patch to be more stylistically in keeping
with libpq. I haven't looked at the current version of the patch yet,
but the early versions seemed quite overengineered to me, so your
criticism didn't surprise me.

>> Keep in mind that the original patch supported a single hook being
>> registered.

> Right, it was more the case insensitive part that bothered me.

I'm wondering why the hooks need names at all. AFAICS all that
libpq needs to know about a hook is a callback function address
and a void * passthrough pointer.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2008-05-14 14:47:29 Re: libpq object hooks
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2008-05-14 14:23:33 Re: libpq object hooks

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2008-05-14 14:47:29 Re: libpq object hooks
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2008-05-14 14:23:33 Re: libpq object hooks