|From:||David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>|
|To:||David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>|
|Cc:||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>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Subject:||Re: WIP: document the hook system|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 09:38:39AM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> On 3/9/21 12:20 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 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.
> There's doesn't seem to be agreement on how to proceed here, so closing.
> David, if you do decide to proceed with a README then it would probably be
> best to create a new thread/entry.
Thanks for the work on this and the helpful feedback!
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
|Next Message||Surafel Temesgen||2021-03-10 16:49:16||Re: WIP: System Versioned Temporal Table|
|Previous Message||David Steele||2021-03-10 16:48:05||Re: [PATCH] Covering SPGiST index|