Re: Add system identifier to backup manifest

On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 9:37 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 11:05:36AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > So with that in mind, here's my proposal. This is an adjustment of
> > Amit's previous refactoring patch. He renamed the existing
> > get_controlfile() to get_dir_controlfile() and made a new
> > get_controlfile() that accepted the path to the control file itself. I
> > chose to instead leave the existing get_controlfile() alone and add a
> > new get_controlfile_by_exact_path(). I think this is better, because
> > most of the existing callers find it more convenient to pass the path
> > to the data directory rather than the path to the controlfile, so the
> > patch is smaller this way, and less prone to cause headaches for
> > people back-patching or maintaining out-of-core code. But it still
> > gives us a way to avoid repeatedly constructing the same pathname.
>
> Yes, that was my primary concern with the previous versions of the
> patch.
>
> > If nobody objects, I plan to commit this version.
>
> You are not changing silently the internals of get_controlfile(), so
> no objections here. The name of the new routine could be shorter, but
> being short of ideas what you are proposing looks fine by me.
>

Could be get_controlfile_by_path() ?

Regards,
Amul