On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Joachim Wieland <joe@mcknight.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And just for added fun and excitement, they all have inconsistent
>> naming conventions and inadequate documentation.
>>
>> I think if we need more refactoring in order to support multiple
>> database connections, we should go do that refactoring. The current
>> situation is not serving anyone well.
>
> I guess I'd find it cleaner to have just one connection per Archive
> (or ArchiveHandle). If you need two connections, why not just have two
> Archive objects, as they would have different characteristics anyway,
> one for dumping data, one to restore.
I think we're more-or-less proposing to rename "Archive" to
"Connection", aren't we?
And then ArchiveHandle can store all the things that aren't related to
a specific connection.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
