Re: Application name patch - v3

From: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: 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: 2010-01-07 15:33:50
Message-ID: 4B45FEDE.9090207@lelarge.info
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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
>>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4AAE8CCF.9070808@esilo.com
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>> (http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/6222.1253734019@sss.pgh.pa.us) 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?

--
Guillaume.
http://www.postgresqlfr.org
http://dalibo.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-01-07 15:36:55 Re: Patch: Allow substring/replace() to get/set bit values
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-01-07 15:33:06 Re: Buffer statistics for pg_stat_statements