On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 10:15:55PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> 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?
That is what I'm trying to do.
> 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.
Sure, but that seems like an effort somewhat orthogonal to the one I
proposed, which is to get some user-facing i.e. SGML docs up for the
Here's everything that matches ^\w+_hook$ that I've found so far in
git master. There are very likely false positives in this list.
Some appear to be client-side, some server-side. I hope that no hook
is named other than that way, and I'll do my best to check.
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: