|From:||David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>|
|To:||David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>|
|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 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.
|Next Message||Peter Eisentraut||2021-03-10 14:53:29||Re: Boundary value check in lazy_tid_reaped()|
|Previous Messageemail@example.com'||2021-03-10 14:35:27||Re: libpq debug log|