Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Application name patch - v3

From: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Application name patch - v3
Date: 2010-01-15 17:53:57
Message-ID: 4B50ABB5.5030200@lelarge.info (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Le 08/01/2010 23:22, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit :
> Le 07/01/2010 19:13, Robert Haas a écrit :
>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Guillaume Lelarge
>> <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
>>> Le 04/01/2010 22:36, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit :
>>>> Le 29/12/2009 14:12, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit :
>>>>> Le 29/12/2009 00:03, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit :
>>>>>> Le 28/12/2009 22:59, Tom Lane a écrit :
>>>>>>> Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> writes:
>>>>>>>> Le 28/12/2009 17:06, Tom Lane a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> I think we were stalled on the question of whether to use one array
>>>>>>>>> or two parallel arrays.  Do you want to try coding up a sample usage
>>>>>>>>> of each possibility so we can see which one seems more useful?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm interested in working on this. But I don't find the thread that talk
>>>>>>>> about this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try here
>>>>>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4AAE8CCF.9070808@esilo.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks. I've read all the "new version of PQconnectdb" and "Determining
>>>>>> client_encoding from client locale" threads. I think I understand the
>>>>>> goal. Still need to re-read this one
>>>>>> (http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/6222.1253734019@sss.pgh.pa.us) and
>>>>>> completely understand it (will probably need to look at the code, at
>>>>>> least the PQconnectdb one). But I'm definitely working on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If I try to sum up my readings so far, this is what we still have to do:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. try the one-array approach
>>>>>    PGconn *PQconnectParams(const char **params)
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. try the two-arrays approach
>>>>>    PGconn *PQconnectParams(const char **keywords, const char **values)
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead of doing a wrapper around PQconnectdb, we need to refactor the
>>>>> whole function, so that we can get rid of the parsing of the conninfo
>>>>> string (which is quite complicated).
>>>>>
>>>>> Using psql as an example would be a good idea, AFAICT.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I right? did I misunderstand or forget something?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I supposed I was right since noone yell at me :)
>>>>
>>>> I worked on this tonight. You'll find two patches attached, one for the
>>>> one-array approach, one for the two-arrays approach. I know some more
>>>> factoring can be done (at least, the "get the fallback resources..."
>>>> part). I'm OK to do them. I just need to know if I'm on the right track.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hmmm... sorry but... can i have some comments on these two patches, please?
>>
>> I would suggest adding your patch(es) to:
>>
>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/open
>>
>> Probably just one entry for the two of them would be most appropriate.
>>
> 
> Done. Thanks.
> 

New patches because the old ones didn't apply anymore, due to recent CVS
commits.


-- 
Guillaume.
 http://www.postgresqlfr.org
 http://dalibo.com

Attachment: libpqParams2_v2.patch
Description: text/x-patch (14.1 KB)
Attachment: libpqParams1_v2.patch
Description: text/x-patch (13.7 KB)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg Sabino MullaneDate: 2010-01-15 17:59:05
Subject: Re: Streaming replication, loose ends
Previous:From: David FetterDate: 2010-01-15 17:51:58
Subject: Re: Streaming replication, loose ends

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group