Le 26/01/2010 00:04, Joe Conway a écrit :
> I'm reviewing the patch posted here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-01/msg01579.php
> for this commitfest item:
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=259
>
First, thanks for reviewing my patch.
> Patch attached - a few minor changes:
> -------------------------------------
> 1) Updated to apply cleanly against cvs tip
Sorry about this. I already updated it twice. I didn't think a new
update was needed.
> 2) Improved comments
Sure.
> 3) Moved much of what was in PQconnectStartParams() to a new
> conninfo_array_parse() to be more consistent with existing code
You're right. It also makes the code more readable and understandable. I
should have done that.
> Questions/comments:
> -------------------
> a) Do we want an analog to PQconninfoParse(), e.g.
> PQconninfoParseParams()? If not, it isn't worth keeping use_defaults
> as an argument to conninfo_array_parse().
No, I don't think so. I can't find a use case for it.
> b) I refrained from further consolidation even though there is room.
> For example, I considered leaving only the real parsing code in
> conninfo_parse(), and having it return keywords and values arrays.
> If we did that, the rest of the code could be modified to accept
> keywords and values instead of conninfo, and therefore shared. I was
> concerned about the probably small performance hit to the existing
> code path. Thoughts?
> c) Obviously I liked the "two-arrays approach" better -- any objections
> to that?
No objection. I prefer the other one, but it's just not that important.
I didn't put any documentation before knowing which one will be choosen.
So we still need to work on the manual.
Thanks again.
--
Guillaume.http://www.postgresqlfr.orghttp://dalibo.com
