Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To:
Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc:
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>
On 08.09.2011 23:45, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On 8 September 2011 15:43, Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I wouldn't be too enthusiastic about
>> starting a project like this in January, but now seems fine. A bigger
>> problem is that I don't hear anyone volunteering to do the work.
>
> You seem to have a fairly strong opinion on the xlog.c code. It would
> be useful to hear any preliminary thoughts that you might have on what
> we'd end up with when this refactoring work is finished. If I'm not
> mistaken, you think that it is a good candidate for being refactored
> not so much because of its size, but for other reasons - could you
> please elaborate on those? In particular, I'd like to know what
> boundaries it is envisaged that the code should be refactored along to
> increase its conceptual integrity, or to better separate concerns. I
> assume that that's the idea, since each new .c file would have to have
> a discrete purpose.
I'd like to see it split into routines involved in writing WAL, and
those involved in recovery. And maybe a third file for archiving-related
stuff.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
