From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WIP: document the hook system |
Date: | 2021-03-09 17:20:49 |
Message-ID: | 20210309172049.GD26575@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 08:32:43PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think that the best you should hope for here is that people are
> willing to add a short, not-too-detailed para to a markup-free
> plain-text README file that lists all the hooks. As soon as it
> gets any more complex than that, either the doco aspect will be
> ignored, or there simply won't be any more hooks.
>
> (I'm afraid I likewise don't believe in the idea of carrying a test
> module for each hook. Again, requiring that is a good way to
> ensure that new hooks just won't happen.)
Agreed. If you document the hooks too much, it allows them to drift
away from matching the code, which makes the hook documentation actually
worse than having no hook documentation at all.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Naylor | 2021-03-09 17:25:14 | Re: non-HOT update not looking at FSM for large tuple update |
Previous Message | David Steele | 2021-03-09 17:03:31 | Re: [patch] [doc] Minor variable related cleanup and rewording of plpgsql docs |