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 <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
