| 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 |
| Date: | 2021-03-10 14:38:39 |
| Message-ID: | 9603d017-a078-03f8-99ad-6e47686d47b0@pgmasters.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
Regards,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-03-10 14:53:29 | Re: Boundary value check in lazy_tid_reaped() |
| Previous Message | 'alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org' | 2021-03-10 14:35:27 | Re: libpq debug log |