| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: document the hook system |
| Date: | 2021-03-04 15:00:49 |
| Message-ID: | 57ebd895-5ff4-8dd7-4cb8-f39eb2b7311d@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 15.01.21 08:28, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2020-12-31 04:28, David Fetter wrote:
>> This could probably use a lot of filling in, but having it in the
>> actual documentation beats needing to know folklore even to know
>> that the capability is there.
>
> This patch seems quite short of a state where one could begin to
> evaluate it. Documenting the hooks better seems a worthwhile goal. I
> think the question is whether we can develop documentation that is
> genuinely useful by itself without studying the relevant source code.
> This submission does not address that question.
There hasn't been any meaningful progress on this, and no new patch to
look at, so I'm proposing to set this as returned with feedback.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-03-04 15:01:37 | Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-03-04 14:56:07 | Re: Feedback on table expansion hook (including patch) |