On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> No, they could revise their patch to be more stylistically in keeping
> with libpq. I haven't looked at the current version of the patch yet,
> but the early versions seemed quite overengineered to me, so your
> criticism didn't surprise me.
I think you'll find the latest version more reasonable. We tried to
keep the over-engineering, so to speak, on our side and make the libpq
changes surgical.
> I'm wondering why the hooks need names at all. AFAICS all that
> libpq needs to know about a hook is a callback function address
> and a void * passthrough pointer.
Here are the proposed API changes [aside: this is one of two breaks
from your initial suggestions..the other being PQcopyResult]:
+ PQcopyResult 142
+ PQsetvalue 143
+ PQresultAlloc 144
+ PQaddObjectHooks 145
+ PQaddGlobalObjectHooks 146
+ PQhookData 147
+ PQresultHookData 148
In question is:
+ void *
+ PQhookData(const PGconn *conn, const char *hookName)
Basically, libpqtypes has various functions that take a PGconn that
need the private data that is stored in libpq with the connection.
PQhookData just does simple linear search and returns the data.
[thinks]
are you suggesting something like
+ void *
+ PQhookData(const PGconn *conn, const void *hookHandle)
?
I would have to take a quick look at the code with Andrew C (he'll be
in in a bit)...but this might be doable.
merlin
