MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CANbhV-E4pTWeF-DsdaGsOrjJNFWPaR+Dstjrnkqvf9JFFgOKKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <f781f8f198567cee9e3776487bab3e41a7b91b82.camel@j-davis.com>
 <20220512034010.4oqa76pasrulkw32@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CANbhV-G7SfdRLR6r7sxY0uL=TRU0S=cxkWJGWyTdss3u8LFK=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220512234207.pwwp6q33f72byet2@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CANbhV-FFgAFeNZ=qNc7Fr991Asym+sfj=R5hb02XeRE6067=hg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CANbhV-FFgAFeNZ=qNc7Fr991Asym+sfj=R5hb02XeRE6067=hg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 12:25:21 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CA+TgmobB+AtAQKbEVWxPd=Q9da8_nQyRMEdya9Rr4Z=e1Wkrng@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Comments on Custom RMGRs
To: Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmobB%2BAtAQKbEVWxPd%3DQ9da8_nQyRMEdya9Rr4Z%3De1Wkrng%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 8:47 AM Simon Riggs
<simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > Note that I'm *not* against making checkpoint extensible - I just think it
> > needs a good bit of design work around when the hook is called etc.
>
> When was any such work done previously for any other hook?? That isn't needed.

I think almost every proposal to add a hook results in some discussion
about how usable the hook will be and whether it's being put in the
correct place and called with the correct arguments.

I think that's a good thing, too. Otherwise the code would be
cluttered with a bunch of hooks that seemed to someone like a good
idea at the time but are actually just a maintenance headache.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com