On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 3:47 PM, daveg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:52:43AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> >> One idea would be to add the libpq hooks but not document them. This >> way, we can modify or remove the API as needed in the future. As >> libpqtypes matures and we are sure what the API should be, we can >> document it as stable and permanent. > > Perhaps it is just me, but undocumented interface are evil. Simply document > it with the changable bits labled as such.
Well, in defense of Bruce, there is some precedent for that. Anything that queries binary currently falls under that umbrella (mostly undocumented and changeable). For functions exported by libpq though...it's probably better to nail things down as much as possible up front. This is a big advantage of the hooks strategy overall, it allows us to mature the library except for the interaction with libpq (ISTM Bruce was trying to give us a little leeway here as well, and we appreciate that). merlin -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
