Re: Extensions, this time with a patch
От | Dimitri Fontaine |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Extensions, this time with a patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | m2sjyqwkv2.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Extensions, this time with a patch (Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Extensions, this time with a patch
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com> writes: > RECOVERY_COMMAND_FILE is opened twice in the patch. The first time > is for checking the existence, and the second time is for parsing. > Instead of the repeat, how about adding FILE* version of parser? > It will be also called from ParseConfigFile() as a sub routine. > > bool ParseConfigFd(FILE *fd, const char *config_file, int depth, ...) Something like the attached, version 5 of the patch? I've been using the function name ParseConfigFp because the internal parameter was called fp in the previous function body. I suppose that could easily be changed at commit time if necessary. > BTW, the parser supports "include" and "custom_variable_classes" > not only for postgresql.conf but also for all files. Is it an > intended behavior? I think they are harmless, so we don't have > to change the codes; "include" might be useful even in recovery.conf, > and "custom_variable_classes" will be "unrecognized recovery > parameter" error after all. Extensions will need the support for custom_variable_classes as it is done now, and as you say, the recovery will just error out. You have to clean your recovery.conf file then try again (I just tried and confirm). I personally don't see any harm to have the features in all currently known uses-cases, and I don't see any point in walking an extra mile here to remove a feature in some cases. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: