Re: WIP: document the hook system

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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