Re: [PATCH] Make pg_basebackup configure and start standby [Review]
От | Boszormenyi Zoltan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] Make pg_basebackup configure and start standby [Review] |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 50E3F6E7.2080701@cybertec.at обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Make pg_basebackup configure and start standby [Review] (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] Make pg_basebackup configure and start standby [Review]
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2013-01-02 01:24 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta: > Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at> writes: >> 2013-01-01 17:18 keltezéssel, Magnus Hagander írta: >>> That way we can get around the whole need for changing memory allocation across all the >>> frontends, no? Like the attached. >> Sure it's simpler but then the consistent look of the code is lost. >> What about the other patch to unify pg_malloc and friends? >> Basically all client code boils down to >> fprintf(stderr, ...) >> in different disguise in their error reporting, so that patch can >> also be simplified but it seems that the atexit() - either explicitly >> or hidden behind InitPostgresFrontend() - cannot be avoided. > Meh. I find it seriously wrongheaded that something as minor as an > escape_quotes() function should get to dictate both malloc wrappers > and error recovery handling throughout every program that might use it. Actually, the unification of pg_malloc and friends wasn't dictated by this little code, it was just that pg_basebackup doesn't provide a pg_malloc implementation (only pg_malloc0) that is used by initdb's escape_quotes() function. Then I noticed how wide these almost identical functions have spread into client apps already. I would say this unification patch is completely orthogonal to the patch in $SUBJECT. I will post it in a different thread if it's wanted at all. The extra atexit() handler is not needed if a simple fprintf(stderr, ...) error reporting is enough in all clients. As far as I saw, all clients do exactly this but some of them hide this behind #define's. > I like Magnus' version a lot better than that idea. OK, I will post the core patch building on his code. > A bigger issue that I notice with this code is that it's only correct in > backend-safe encodings, as the comment mentions. If we're going to be > putting it into frontend programs, how safe is that going to be? > > regards, tom lane The question in a different form is: does PostgreSQL support non-ASCII-safe encodings at all (or on the client side)? Forgive my ignorance and enlighten me: how many such encodings exist besides EBCDIC? Is UTF-16 non-ASCII-safe? Best regards, Zoltán Böszörményi -- ---------------------------------- Zoltán Böszörményi Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH Gröhrmühlgasse 26 A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de http://www.postgresql.at/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: