Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> The first thing it needs is lots and lots of documentation. I think it 
> probably needs a Section in the libpq chapter all on its own, preferably 
> with some examples. I think that lack alone is enough to keep it from 
> being committed for now.
> Second, the hook names are compared case insensitively and by linear 
> search. I don't see any justification for using case insensitive names 
> for hooks in a C program, so I think that part should go. And if we 
> expect to keep anything other than trivial numbers of hooks we should 
> look at some sort of binary or hashed search.
> The thing that is a bit disturbing is that the whole style of this 
> scheme is very different from the fairly simple APIs that the rest of 
> libpq presents. It's going to make libpq look rather odd, I think. I 
> would have felt happier if the authors had been able to come up with a 
> simple scheme to add API calls to export whatever information they 
> needed, rather than using this callback scheme.

My personal opinion is still that I would like to see a more general
usefulness for these functions before adding them to libpq.  The
complexity of the API just mirrors my gut feeling on this.

  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to