On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 23, 2012 04:17:39 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
>> > On Thursday, July 19, 2012 07:18:08 PM Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
>> >> I agree with that we need more sophisticated way to share the code
>> >> between the backend and several utilities (including xlogdump),
>> >> but AFAIK, a contrib module must allow to be built *without* the core
>> >> source tree.
>> > I don't think thats reasonable. The amount of code duplication required
>> > to support that usecase is just not reasonable. Especially if you want
>> > to support pre 9.3 and 9.3+.
>> It seems like the direction this is going is that the xlog reading
>> stuff should be a library which is used by both the backend and 1 or
>> more xlog decoding tools.
> Thats fine for the xlogreader itself - it only uses stuff from headers. The
> problem is that the xlog debugging/printing infrastructure is pretty much
> guaranteed to include just about the whole backend...
Could that be fixed by moving the debugging routines into a separate
set of files, instead of having them lumped in with the code that
applies those xlog records?
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-07-23 15:34:26|
|Subject: Re: postgres 9 bind address for replication|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-07-23 15:09:38|
|Subject: Re: sortsupport for text|