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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> ( 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:
>> 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


Attachment Content-Type Size
libpqParams1_v2.patch text/x-patch 13.7 KB
libpqParams2_v2.patch text/x-patch 14.1 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Sabino Mullane 2010-01-15 17:59:05 Re: Streaming replication, loose ends
Previous Message David Fetter 2010-01-15 17:51:58 Re: Streaming replication, loose ends