Re: [HACKERS] LIBPQ patches ...

Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> writes:
> At 05:27 PM 1/8/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I also object strongly to the lack of documentation.

> ... I know there are some folks who aren't native-english speakers, so
> perhaps you don't want to require that the implementor of such patches
> provide the final documentation wording. But the information should
> be there and spelled out in a form that can be very easily moved to
> the docs.

Oh, absolutely. Thomas, our master of the docs, has always had the
policy of "give me some words, I'll take care of formatting and
editing..."

I was probably too harsh on Alfred last night, since in fact his code
was fairly well commented, and some minimal doco could have been
extracted from the routine headers. But on a change like this, I think
some paragraphs of coherent high-level explanation are needed: what it
does, when and why you'd use it. I didn't see that anywhere...

regards, tom lane