Thread: printTable API (was: Show INHERIT in \du)
On 25/03/2008, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Brendan Jurd" <direvus@gmail.com> writes:
> > This makes me wonder whether print.c could offer something a bit more
> > helpful to callers wishing to DIY a table; we could have a
> > table-building struct with methods like addHeader and addCell.
>
> Once you have two occurrences of a pattern, it's reasonable to assume
> there will be more later. +1 for building a little bit of infrastructure.
>
Hi hackers,
Per the above discussion, I'm looking at creating a nice API in
print.c for callers wishing to build their own psql output table.
Currently, if you want to build your own table you need to implement
your own local version of the logic in printQuery.
describeOneTableDetails is the only place this happens right now, but
due to some localisation issues it looks like my \du patch will have
to build its table manually as well.
There seem to be some differences in the way printQuery and
describeOneTableDetails go about constructing the array of cells.
Here's the version from describe:
<code> /* Generate table cells to be printed */ /* note: initialize all cells[] to NULL in case of error exit */
cells= pg_malloc_zero((numrows * cols + 1) * sizeof(*cells));
for (i = 0; i < numrows; i++) { /* Name */
#ifdef WIN32 cells[i * cols + 0] = mbvalidate(PQgetvalue(res, i, 0), myopt.encoding);
#else cells[i * cols + 0] = PQgetvalue(res, i, 0); /* don't free this
* afterwards */
#endif
/* Type */
#ifdef WIN32 cells[i * cols + 1] = mbvalidate(PQgetvalue(res, i, 1), myopt.encoding);
#else cells[i * cols + 1] = PQgetvalue(res, i, 1); /* don't free this
* either */
#endif
</code>
And the version from printQuery:
<code> /* set cells */ ncells = ntuples * nfields; cells = pg_local_calloc(ncells + 1, sizeof(*cells));
i = 0; for (r = 0; r < ntuples; r++) { for (c = 0; c < nfields; c++) { if
(PQgetisnull(result,r, c)) cells[i] = opt->nullPrint ? opt->nullPrint : ""; else {
cells[i] = (char *) mbvalidate((unsigned char *) PQgetvalue(result, r, c),
opt->topt.encoding);
#ifdef ENABLE_NLS if (opt->trans_columns && opt->trans_columns[c]) cells[i] =
_(cells[i]);
#endif } i++; } }
</code>
So, it looks like:
1. describe malloc's the cells to zero, but print just does a local
calloc without any initialisation.
2. describe only does an mbvalidate for WIN32, but print does it in all cases.
Any opinions on which behaviour is preferable/more correct in these two cases?
Regards,
BJ
Brendan Jurd wrote: > 1. describe malloc's the cells to zero, but print just does a local > calloc without any initialisation. Um, calloc is the same as malloc + zero. Those two seem identical to me. > 2. describe only does an mbvalidate for WIN32, but print does it in all cases. There's this comment in describe.c: > /* > * mbvalidate() is used in function describeOneTableDetails() to make sure > * all characters of the cells will be printed to the DOS console in a > * correct way > */ I don't know what that's about. Perhaps there's something in the archives... -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
"Brendan Jurd" <direvus@gmail.com> writes:
> So, it looks like:
> 1. describe malloc's the cells to zero, but print just does a local
> calloc without any initialisation.
There isn't any functional difference there. I am not sure, but I think
the reason print.c has its own malloc wrappers instead of depending on
common.c's is that we use print.c in some bin/scripts/ programs that
do not want common.c too.
> 2. describe only does an mbvalidate for WIN32, but print does it in all cases.
I don't know why describe only does that for WIN32; it looks
inconsistent to me too. Possibly some trolling in the CVS history would
give a clue about this.
If you're not actively working on this patch right now, I am going to go
ahead and commit the other open patches for describe.c. If you do have
a patch in progress, I'm willing to hold off to avoid any merge
conflicts. Let me know.
regards, tom lane
On 31/03/2008, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > There isn't any functional difference there. I am not sure, but I think > the reason print.c has its own malloc wrappers instead of depending on > common.c's is that we use print.c in some bin/scripts/ programs that > do not want common.c too. > Okay, thanks (to Heikki as well) for the clarification. It's good to know they are functionally equivalent. I'll do some snooping in /scripts to get a better view of the situation. > > 2. describe only does an mbvalidate for WIN32, but print does it in all cases. > > I don't know why describe only does that for WIN32; it looks > inconsistent to me too. Possibly some trolling in the CVS history would > give a clue about this. > Alright, I'll be spending some quality time with 'annotate' then =) > > If you're not actively working on this patch right now, I am going to go > ahead and commit the other open patches for describe.c. If you do have > a patch in progress, I'm willing to hold off to avoid any merge > conflicts. Let me know. > I didn't get much beyond sketching out my struct. Now that I have answers to the questions I raised above, I can push forward with the patch, but I wouldn't expect to have anything to submit for another couple of days at least. Short answer: I have zero objections to you committing those patches. Thanks for your time, BJ
The author has been given feedback so this has been saved for the next commit-fest: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brendan Jurd wrote: > On 31/03/2008, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > There isn't any functional difference there. I am not sure, but I think > > the reason print.c has its own malloc wrappers instead of depending on > > common.c's is that we use print.c in some bin/scripts/ programs that > > do not want common.c too. > > > > Okay, thanks (to Heikki as well) for the clarification. It's good to > know they are functionally equivalent. I'll do some snooping in > /scripts to get a better view of the situation. > > > > 2. describe only does an mbvalidate for WIN32, but print does it in all cases. > > > > I don't know why describe only does that for WIN32; it looks > > inconsistent to me too. Possibly some trolling in the CVS history would > > give a clue about this. > > > > Alright, I'll be spending some quality time with 'annotate' then =) > > > > > If you're not actively working on this patch right now, I am going to go > > ahead and commit the other open patches for describe.c. If you do have > > a patch in progress, I'm willing to hold off to avoid any merge > > conflicts. Let me know. > > > > I didn't get much beyond sketching out my struct. Now that I have > answers to the questions I raised above, I can push forward with the > patch, but I wouldn't expect to have anything to submit for another > couple of days at least. > > Short answer: I have zero objections to you committing those patches. > > Thanks for your time, > BJ > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 31/03/2008, Tom Lane wrote: > "Brendan Jurd" writes: > > 1. describe malloc's the cells to zero, but print just does a local > > calloc without any initialisation. > > There isn't any functional difference there. I am not sure, but I think > the reason print.c has its own malloc wrappers instead of depending on > common.c's is that we use print.c in some bin/scripts/ programs that > do not want common.c too. > Yeah, it looks like createlang and droplang use print.c to emit a list of installed languages. > > 2. describe only does an mbvalidate for WIN32, but print does it in all cases. > > I don't know why describe only does that for WIN32; it looks > inconsistent to me too. Possibly some trolling in the CVS history would > give a clue about this. > Well, mbvalidate was originally added to print.c in 2001, as part of a big patch to add multibyte support to psql [1]. However, it was only added to describe much later (2003) in response to a bug report about 8-bit characters not displaying correctly on the Windows console [2].I think that because the bug was only observed in Windows,the patch was added #ifdef WIN32, even though print.c was already using mbvalidate for all content. This nicely illustrates the nuisance inherent to duplication of code! Based on this, I'm going to go ahead with using mbvalidate in all cases. Cheers, BJ [1] http://repo.or.cz/w/PostgreSQL.git?a=commit;h=a428cef1 [2] http://repo.or.cz/w/PostgreSQL.git?a=commit;h=e6a16c17 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://getfiregpg.org iD8DBQFH9QFt5YBsbHkuyV0RAv2ZAJ4/rfyjgFOh8XZo6aJo68dz5NsovQCgmf40 fCXMlsHdg1r4oTpfZD5DH+0= =PrN1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25/03/2008, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > "Brendan Jurd" <direvus@gmail.com> writes:
> > > This makes me wonder whether print.c could offer something a bit more
> > > helpful to callers wishing to DIY a table; we could have a
> > > table-building struct with methods like addHeader and addCell.
> >
> > Once you have two occurrences of a pattern, it's reasonable to assume
> > there will be more later. +1 for building a little bit of infrastructure.
> >
>
> Per the above discussion, I'm looking at creating a nice API in
> print.c for callers wishing to build their own psql output table.
>
> Currently, if you want to build your own table you need to implement
> your own local version of the logic in printQuery.
> describeOneTableDetails is the only place this happens right now, but
> due to some localisation issues it looks like my \du patch will have
> to build its table manually as well.
>
I'd like to submit my first version of this patch for review. I have
introduced a new struct in print.h called printTableContent, which is
used to compose the contents of a psql table. The methods exposed for
this struct are as follows:
void printTableInit(printTableContent *const content, const char *title,
const int ncolumns, const int nrows);
void printTableAddHeader(printTableContent *const content, const char *header,
const int encoding, const bool translate, const char align);
void printTableAddCell(printTableContent *const content, const char *cell,
const int encoding, const bool translate);
void printTableAddFooter(printTableContent *const content, const char *footer);
void printTableSetFooter(printTableContent *const content, const char *footer);
void printTableCleanUp(printTableContent *const content);
-= Notes
The column headers and cells are implemented as simple arrays of
pointers to existing strings. It's necessary for the calling site to
ensure that these strings survive at least until the table has been
printed. That's usually not a problem since the headers and cells
tend to be inside a PGresult.
Footers are a bit different. I've implemented them as a very
primitive singly-linked list which copies its contents with strdup. A
lot of the complexity in the pre-patch describeOneTableDetails comes
from the fact that it needs to know the number of footers in advance.
The singly-linked list allows callers to incrementally add an
arbitrary number of footers, and doesn't require them to preserve the
strings, which is nice when you're working with a temporary
PQExpBuffer to produce a footer.
-= QA
Not having written much C, I'm concerned about memory management
errors. But I've run my own tests with describeOneTableDetails on
tables with every kind of footer there is, and put the patch through
valgrind, and I haven't encountered any segfaults or memory leaks.
Both the serial and parallel regression tests passed perfectly.
-= Documentation
None required as far as I can tell, aside from code comments.
-= Patch tracking
I'll add this to the May CommitFest wiki page myself -- Bruce, you
don't need to do anything at all! =)
Looking forward to your comments.
Cheers,
BJ
Attachment
Brendan Jurd escribió: > I'd like to submit my first version of this patch for review. I have > introduced a new struct in print.h called printTableContent, which is > used to compose the contents of a psql table. The methods exposed for > this struct are as follows: Looks cool -- on a first read, I think you should add some more code comments at the top of each function specifying whether the texts need to be translated by the caller or done by the function itself. Also it would be good if it is consistent, too :-) -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 6:03 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Looks cool -- on a first read, I think you should add some more code > comments at the top of each function specifying whether the texts need > to be translated by the caller or done by the function itself. Also it > would be good if it is consistent, too :-) > Thanks for your feedback Alvaro. Taking a look at this with fresh eyes, I realised it was daft to pass the encoding to each AddHeader and AddCell call, since the encoding isn't going to change between cells. Instead I put a pointer to a printTableOpt inside the printTableContent. The Opt struct contains the encoding and the Add functions refer to the encoding internally when adding items. This also has the benefit that you don't need to pass a printTableOpt separately to the functions that actually do the printing. Per your suggestion, I fleshed out the comments on translation, in particular explaining why AddHeader and AddCell have an option for translation but AddFooter does not. The second version of the patch is attached. Now my question is, how do I indicate that a second version of the patch has been submitted on the wiki? Should I leave the primary link pointing at the original submission, or update it to point at this message? Cheers, BJ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://getfiregpg.org iD8DBQFIBGMz5YBsbHkuyV0RArf1AJwOsz2Wq5g7vg6DvyOzD7Ixsgl8EgCg4HyZ sxtmc2A5FYiwYkkrhfpDsDM= =jvKI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Attachment
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 06:11:32PM +1000, Brendan Jurd wrote: > Now my question is, how do I indicate that a second version of the > patch has been submitted on the wiki? Should I leave the primary link > pointing at the original submission, or update it to point at this > message? I'd say add a row: New version submitted (link) (brief summary of changes) If there are many more versions you can consider cutting, but you're not there yet. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > Please line up in a tree and maintain the heap invariant while > boarding. Thank you for flying nlogn airlines.