Re: security label support, revised

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Perhaps. I know that in the past we have not documented hook
> functions, and I'm thinking that there may be people (in particular,
> possibly Tom) who have strong feelings about keeping it that way.
> Even if that's not the case, once we do start documenting the hooks,
> we will presumably need to document all of them, and that may be more
> of a project than I really want to get into right now, especially if I
> will have to do much of the work myself. I'd be perfectly ecstatic if
> a committable patch spontaneously materialized, but...

I wouldn't say I have strong feelings about it; but most of the hooks
we've put in so far are things that you really had better be prepared to
read the source code if you want to exploit them. Does anyone want to
write and maintain SGML documentation specifying a complete API for
ProcessUtility, for example?

One of the powerful advantages of being an open source project is that
"use the source, Luke" is a perfectly reasonable approach to documenting
some things. I think hook functions are one.

regards, tom lane