Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andrew Dunstan escribió:
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.
I'm not sure I understand this point. Remember that this is here to
support the libpqtypes library. There doesn't seem to be a way for an
API such as you describe to work.
That might well be true. The issue then becomes "Do we want to add
something with this flavor to libpq?" I take it Bruce's answer is "No",
at least until he has seen more evidence of general usefulness. I think
we need to make a decision on this before anyone wastes any more time.
It should be noted that while this feels slightly foreign, it isn't
hugely invasive, unlike the previous effort - it's only a few hundred
lines of new code.
If we reject this, presumably the authors will have no alternative than
to offer libpqtypes as a patch to libpq. ISTM that we're then asking
them to climb over a fairly high hurdle. On the one hand we want them to
demonstrate that there's demand for their tool and on the other we make
it difficult to distribute and deploy.
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.
Keep in mind that the original patch supported a single hook being
registered. Perhaps we could dream about having a couple of hooks
registered, but turning into hashed search would seem to be overkill, at
least for now. (If hooking into libpq is truly successful we can always
improve it later -- it's not an exported detail of the API after all.)
Right, it was more the case insensitive part that bothered me.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
