Le 12 juin 09 à 23:20, Tom Lane a écrit :
> Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com> writes:
>> Le 12 juin 09 à 21:49, Tom Lane a écrit :
>>> It seems to me it could still do
>>> with a lot more detail to specify what API the functions are really
>>> expected to implement.
>
> What's bothering me is the fuzziness of the API
> specifications for the support functions. It's not real clear for
> example what you have to do to have an index storage type different
> from
> the column datatype, and even less clear which type the same()
> function
> is comparing. Having some skeletons that execute magic bits of
> undocumented code is not a substitute for a specification.
Oh yes that wasn't easy to guess: I had to look at others
implementations then do some tests (trial&error) to determine this.
Andrew Gierth has been really helpful here, and his ip4r module a good
example (but without varlena).
I'll try to provide something here, what I'm trying to say is that I
need some help and research (and core code reading) to reverse
engineer the specs.
Regards,
--
dim