| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hooks |
| Date: | 2016-12-28 04:15:55 |
| Message-ID: | ce97d16c-df0d-f674-0525-a3b435bba69c@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/27/16 7:41 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> I see it as larger in scope than mine because it changes how we do
> things as a project. An example of the kind of thing that this raises
> is enforcement. Will something (or someone) check that new hooks have
> this? Will somebody check for comment skew when the APIs change?
> What happens when somebody forgets?
Can we reduce the scope of this to a manageable starting point? I'm
guessing that all existing hooks share certain characteristics that it'd
be pretty easy to detect. If you can detect the hook (which I guess
means finding a static variable with hook in the name) then you can
verify that there's an appropriate comment block. I'm guessing someone
familiar with tools like doxygen could set that up without too much
effort, and I'd be surprised if the community had a problem with it.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-12-28 04:19:11 | Re: Hooks |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-12-28 04:09:53 | Re: merging some features from plpgsql2 project |