Re: Hooks

From: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hooks
Date: 2016-12-28 16:43:18
Message-ID: 20161228164318.GA27301@fetter.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:19:11PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 28 December 2016 at 12:15, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Can we reduce the scope of this to a manageable starting point?
> > I'm guessing that all existing hooks share certain characteristics
> > that it'd be pretty easy to detect. If you can detect the hook
> > (which I guess means finding a static variable with hook in the
> > name) then you can verify that there's an appropriate comment
> > block. I'm guessing someone familiar with tools like doxygen could
> > set that up without too much effort, and I'd be surprised if the
> > community had a problem with it.
>
> Lets just make sure the comment blocks are nice and grep-able too.
>
> I think this is a great idea FWIW. Discovering the extension points
> within Pg isn't easy.
>
> Callbacks aren't easy to find either.

Should callbacks be another chapter in the docs?

Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

In response to

  • Re: Hooks at 2016-12-28 04:19:11 from Craig Ringer

Responses

  • Re: Hooks at 2016-12-28 17:01:53 from Jim Nasby

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2016-12-28 16:47:52 Re: Reporting planning time with EXPLAIN
Previous Message Cynthia Shang 2016-12-28 16:41:42 Re: [PATCH] Fix for documentation of timestamp type