Le 12 juin 09 à 23:20, Tom Lane a écrit :
Dimitri Fontaine <dfonta...@hi-media.com> writes:
Le 12 juin 09 à 21:49, Tom Lane a écrit :
It seems to me it could still do
with a lot more detail to specify what API the functions are really
expected to implement.
What's bothering me is the fuzziness of the API
specifications for the support functions. It's not real clear for
example what you have to do to have an index storage type different
from
the column datatype, and even less clear which type the same()
function
is comparing. Having some skeletons that execute magic bits of
undocumented code is not a substitute for a specification.
Oh yes that wasn't easy to guess: I had to look at others
implementations then do some tests (trial&error) to determine this.
Andrew Gierth has been really helpful here, and his ip4r module a good
example (but without varlena).
I'll try to provide something here, what I'm trying to say is that I
need some help and research (and core code reading) to reverse
engineer the specs.
Regards,
--
dim
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
