> On 27 Oct 2025, at 16:30, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for review!
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2025 at 12:26:01AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> While hacking on this it seemed like a good idea to move to using progname
>> consistently, and reduce scope in some places from global variables, but
>> looking at it now I'm less convinced. At the very least it should be ripped
>> out into its own patch but for now those changes are left in there.
>
> Yeah, that does feel like it ought to be its own patch.
Absolutely agree, will move that out in the next version.
> After a
> read-through, 0001 looks like the right idea to me, though. It's a larger
> patch, but the majority of the changes are pretty mechanical.
It’s indeed pretty boring, and considering what the patch want to achieve I guess that’s a good thing.
> +/* port/pg_option_utils.c */
> +extern bool is_help_param(int argc, char *argv[], int optind);
>
> And fe_utils/option_utils.c, right (since it has a copy of this function)?
> Or is the idea to use pg_option_utils.c for both the frontend and the
> backend?
I originally placed it in fe_utils but then moved to src/port to avoid adding libpq depesencies where we dont have them
today.If there is a second copy then I missed that in my rebase (am travelling without laptop so cant comfortably read
patchesright now to check). Not sure what the best option is and how big of a deal it is. Do you have any suggestions?
./daniel
