At Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:20:55 +0800, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote in
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 11:00:57PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >
> > As I suggested previously- this is similar to the hooks that we provide. We
> > don’t extensively document them because if you’re writing an extension
> > which uses a hook, you’re going to be (or should be..) reading the code too.
>
> I disagree, hooks allows developers to implement some new or additional
> behavior which by definition can't be documented. And it's also relying on the
> C api which by definition allows you to do anything with the server. There are
> also of course some requirements but they're quite obvious (like a planner_hook
> should return a valid plan and such).
>
> On the other hand the archive_command is there to do only one clear thing:
> safely backup a WAL file. And I don't think that what makes that backup "safe"
> is open to discussion. Sure, you can chose to ignore some of it if you think
> you can afford to do it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still a
> requirement which should be documented.
I agree to Julien, however, I want to discuss (also) on what to do for
14 now. If we decide not to touch the document for the version. that
discussion would end. What do you think about that? I think it's
impossible to write the full-document for the requirements *for 14*.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center