On 27/02/16 15:43, Tom Lane wrote:
> Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net> writes:
>> On 02/27/16 08:37, �lvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:
>>> In other words: what is the API surface exposed by PostgreSQL to
>>> extension developers? The assumption is that no PostgreSQL code should be
>>> modified, just adding your own and calling existing funcitons.
>> That's an excellent question that repeatedly comes up, in particular
>> because of the difference between the way the MSVC linker works on Windows,
>> and the way most other linkers work on other platforms.
> Yeah. It would be a fine thing to have a document defining what we
> consider to be the exposed API for extensions. In most cases we could
> not actually stop extension developers from relying on stuff outside the
> defined API, and I don't particularly feel a need to try. But it would be
> clear to all concerned that if you rely on something not in the API, it's
> your problem if we remove it or whack it around in some future release.
> On the other side, it would be clearer to core-code developers which
> changes should be avoided because they would cause pain to extension
> authors.
>
> Unfortunately, it would be a lot of work to develop such a thing, and no
> one has wanted to take it on.
Why would it be so much work? Creating a function list, and maybe
documenting those, doesn't sound like a daunting task.
I wouldn't mind volunteering for this work, but I guess I would
need some help to understand and identify the candidate parts of the
API. If anyone could help me here, please let me know.
Álvaro
--
Álvaro Hernández Tortosa
-----------
8Kdata