On 2020-Mar-26, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I was looking at this patch again today and I am rather fine with the
> existing semantics. Still I don't like much to name the frontend-side
> routine FrontendRestoreArchivedFile() and use a different name than
> the backend counterpart because we have to include xlog_internal.h in
> fe_archive.c to be able to grab XLOGDIR.
Uh, is XLOGDIR the only reason to include xlog_internal.h? Maybe it
would be easier to have a routine in xlog.c that returns the path?
There's a few functions in xlog.c that could use it, as well.
Altough ... looking at xlog.h, that one is even worse, so I'm not sure
*where* you'd put the prototype for the new function I'm proposing.
> So here is an idea: let's move the declaration of the routines part of
> xlogarchive.c to a new header, called xlogarchive.h, and then let's
> use the same routine name for the frontend and the backend in this
> second patch. We include xlog_internal.h already in many frontend
> tools, so that would clean up things a bit.
The patch downthread looks decent cleanup, but I'm not sure how it helps
further the objective.
(A really good cleanup could be a situation where frontend files don't
need xlog_internal.h -- for example, maybe a new file xlogpage.h could
contain struct defs that relate to page and segment headers and the
like, as well as useful macros. I don't know if this can be made to
work -- but xlog_internal.h contains stuff like xl_parameter_change etc
as well as RmgrData which surely are of no interest to readers of wal
files ... or, say, RequestXLogSwitch.)
I don't think any such cleanup should hamper the patch at hand anyway.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
