On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:19:11PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 28 December 2016 at 12:15, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > Lets just make sure the comment blocks are nice and grep-able too. > > I think this is a great idea FWIW. Discovering the extension points > within Pg isn't easy. > > Callbacks aren't easy to find either.
Should callbacks be another chapter in the docs? Best, David. -- 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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers