Re: recovery modules

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: recovery modules
Date: 2023-02-04 02:59:20
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 11:37:00AM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 02:34:17PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Okay, the changes done here look straight-forward seen from here. I
>> got one small-ish comment.
>> +basic_archive_startup(ArchiveModuleState *state)
>> +{
>> + BasicArchiveData *data = palloc0(sizeof(BasicArchiveData));
>> Perhaps this should use MemoryContextAlloc() rather than a plain
>> palloc(). This should not matter based on the position where the
>> startup callback is called, still that may be a pattern worth
>> encouraging.
> Good call.

+ ArchiveModuleCallbacks struct filled with the callback function pointers for
This needs a structname markup.

+ can use <literal>state->private_data</literal> to store it.
And here it would be structfield.

As far as I can see, all the points raised about this redesign seem to
have been addressed. Andres, any comments?

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2023-02-04 03:32:15 Re: Add progress reporting to pg_verifybackup
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2023-02-04 02:49:50 Re: Amcheck verification of GiST and GIN