Andrew Chernow wrote:
> My idea was not a response to your hook idea. It was different
> altogether.
>
> My idea is trying to create one interface where some parts need to be
> enabled (nothing wrong with that design, this is a plugin-like model).
>
> Your idea creates two interfaces where one of them can hook into the
> other. These are two different concepts.
>
> the question is, are you asking for two different interfaces or are you
> just looking to minimize overhead. I thought it was the latter which is
> why I proposed a plugin-like model. It removes bloat as well as
> maintains a single interface. Nothing wrong with the design unless it
> doesn't meet your requirements.
The idea is that the hooks you need in libpq would be available always,
for your interface and for others. This would allow your library to use
native libpq on any >=8.4 platform. People who want to use your library
would have to link in your library and call your additional functions.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
