Re: Application name patch - v3

Le 15/01/2010 18:53, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit :
> Le 08/01/2010 23:22, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit :
>> Le 07/01/2010 19:13, Robert Haas a écrit :
>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Guillaume Lelarge
>>> <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote:
>>>> 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@lelarge.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?
>>>
>>> I would suggest adding your patch(es) to:
>>>
>>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/open
>>>
>>> Probably just one entry for the two of them would be most appropriate.
>>>
>>
>> Done. Thanks.
>>
>
> New patches because the old ones didn't apply anymore, due to recent CVS
> commits.
>

New patches for same reason.


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