Re: libpq object hooks

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