Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It should be noted that while this feels slightly foreign, it isn't > hugely invasive, unlike the previous effort - it's only a few hundred > lines of new code.
> If we reject this, presumably the authors will have no alternative than > to offer libpqtypes as a patch to libpq. 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. >> Keep in mind that the original patch supported a single hook being >> registered. > Right, it was more the case insensitive part that bothered me. 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. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches