From: | "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | 'Alvaro Herrera' <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, "iwata(dot)aya(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <iwata(dot)aya(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Cc: | 'Tom Lane' <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 'Kyotaro Horiguchi' <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "k(dot)jamison(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <k(dot)jamison(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: libpq debug log |
Date: | 2021-03-18 03:38:09 |
Message-ID: | TYAPR01MB2990C8CBB0FB4B7AD73C055FFE699@TYAPR01MB2990.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
> In pqTraceOutputString(), you can use the return value from fprintf to
> move the cursor -- no need to count chars.
Yes, precisely, 2 bytes for the double quotes needs to be subtracted as follows:
len = fprintf(...);
*cursor += (len - 2);
> I still think that the message-type specific functions should print the
> message type, rather than having the string arrays.
I sort of think so to remove the big arrays. But to minimize duplicate code, I think the code structure will look like:
fprintf(timestamp, length);
switch (type)
{
case '?':
pqTraceOutput?(...);
break;
case '?':
/* No message content */
fprintf("message_type_name");
break;
}
void
pqTraceOutput?(...)
{
fprintf("message_type_name");
print message content;
}
The order of length and message type is reversed. The .sgml should also be changed accordingly. What do you think?
Iwata-san,
Why don't you submit v27 patch with the current arrays kept, and then v28 with the arrays removed soon after?
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
> It would help when the value is "255", which is confusing between -1
> (or 255) in byte or 255 in 2-byte word. Or when the value looks like
> broken. I'd suggest "b"yte for 1 byte, "s"hort for 2 bytes, "l"ong for
> 4 bytes ('l' is confusing with '1', but anyway it is not needed)..
I don't have a strong opinion on this. (I kind of think I want to see unprefixed numbers; readers will look at the protocol reference anyway.) I'd like to leave this up to Iwata-san and Alvaro-san.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa}
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-03-18 03:56:12 | Re: PITR promote bug: Checkpointer writes to older timeline |
Previous Message | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2021-03-18 03:34:34 | RE: Parallel INSERT (INTO ... SELECT ...) |