On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 7:41 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>
> On 24.03.25 21:33, Matheus Alcantara wrote:
> >> I'm a bit confused about the refactoring patch 0001. There are some
> >> details there that don't seem right. For example, you write that the
> >> pfree(rconn) calls are no longer necessary, but AFAICT, it would still
> >> be needed in dblink_get_conn(). Also, there appear to be some possible
> >> behavior changes, or at least it's not fully explained, like
> >> connect_pg_server() doing foreign-server name resolution, which
> >> dblink_get_conn() did not do before.
> >>
> >> But it's actually not clear to me how the refactoring in 0001
> >> contributes to making the patch 0002 better, since patch 0002 barely
> >> touches the code touched by 0001.
> >>
> >> How would patch 0002 look without 0001 before it? Which code would need
> >> to be duplicated or what other awkward changes are you trying to avoid?
> > You are right, I think that the refactor was needed on the initial
> > versions of the patch because it was referencing the UseScramPassthrough
> > function in multiple places, so the refactor was needed to accomplish the
> > parameters of the function.
> >
> > Since we now assume that the UseScramPassthrough is already checked on
> > some parts of the code I agree that this refactor is not required
> > anymore. Attached v11 without the refactor patch.
>
> Committed.
>
> I cut down the documentation a bit and instead linked to postgres_fdw
> for some of the details. I think that's better than having to maintain
> that text in two different places.
Thanks!
--
Matheus Alcantara
