On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2015-02-27 16:26:08 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> > On 2015-02-24 20:51:42 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> >> On 02/20/2015 05:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> >> >There's one bit that I'm not so sure about though: To avoid duplication
>> >> >I've added Parse(Commit/Abort)Record(), but unfortunately that has to be
>> >> >available both in front and backend code - so it's currently living in
>> >> >xactdesc.c. I think we can live with that, but it's certainly not
>> >> >pretty.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, that's ugly. Why does frontend code need that? The old format
>> >> isn't exactly trivial for frontend code to decode either.
>> >
>> > pg_xlogdump outputs subxacts and such; I don't forsee other
>> > usages. Sure, we could copy the code around, but I think that's worse
>> > than having it in xactdesc.c. Needs a comment explaining why it's there
>> > if I haven't added one already.
>>
>> FWIW, I think they would live better in frontend code for client applications.
>
> What do you mean with that? You mean you'd rather see a copy in
> pg_xlogdump somewhere? How would you trigger that being used instead of
> the normal description routine?
No, no. I meant that it is good the way your patch does it in
xactdesc.c, where both frontend and backend can reach it.
--
Michael
