Re: [PATCH] XLogReader v2

2012/07/24 1:15, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> 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?
>> Its a major effort. Those function use elog(), stringinfo and lots of other
>> stuff... I am hesitant to start working on that.
>> On the other hand - I think an in-core xlogdump would be great and sensible
>> thing; but I can live with using my hacked up version that simply links to the
>> backend...
>
> The stringinfo thing has long been an annoyance to me. libpq has
> PQExpBuffer which is the exact same thing. I don't like that we have
> two implementations of that in two different code bases, and you have
> to remember to spell it right depending on where you are. I'm not
> sure exactly what the best way to fix that is, but it sure is a pain
> in the neck.

Does it make sense to make some static library which can be
referred from both the backend and several client utilities,
including libpq? Or just a dynamic link be preferred?

Despite I do not have a clear idea right now, is it time to
start thinking of it?

Regards,
--
Satoshi Nagayasu <snaga(at)uptime(dot)jp>
Uptime Technologies, LLC. http://www.uptime.jp