PQconninfo function for libpq
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | PQconninfo function for libpq |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABUevEym=iHwEiPcfUC=O05EkYObnTVQJki91LRVhnWfdbADrg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: PQconninfo function for libpq
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
I'm breaking this out into it's own thread, for my own sanity if nothing else :) And it's an isolated feature after all. I still agree with the previous review at http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1349321071.23971.0.camel@vanquo.pezone.net about keeping the data in more than one place. Based on that, I've created a different version of this patch, attached. This way we keep all the data in one struct. At this point, the patch is untested beyond compiling and a trivial psql check, because I ran out of time :) But I figured I'd throw it out there for comments on which version people prefer. (And yes, it's quite possible I've made a big think-mistake in it somewhere, but again, better to get some eyes on it early) My version also contains a fixed version of the docs that should be moved back into Zoltans version if that's the one we end up preferring. Also, a question was buried in the other review which is - are we OK to remove the requiressl parameter. Both these patches do so, because the code becomes much simpler if we can do that. It has been deprecated since 7.2. Is it OK to remove it, or do we need to put back in the more complex code to deal with both? Attached is both Zoltans latest patch (v16) and my slightly different approach. Comments on which approach is best? Test results from somebody who has the time to look at it? :) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: