Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> 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