Thread: Using the new libpq connection functions in PostgreSQL binaries
Hi, I worked on a patch to make PostgreSQL binaries use the new PQconnectdbParams() libpq functions. I tried to mimic the way Joe Conway changed my previous patch. I know I'm way over the deadline for this commitfest. I couldn't do it before because my previous patch (on this commit fest) proposed two methods to do the new connection functions (a one array method, and a two-arrays method). Joe chose the two arrays method. Anyways, I would understand if it gets postponed to the first commitfest for 9.1. Regards. -- Guillaume. http://www.postgresqlfr.org http://dalibo.com
Attachment
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 09:34, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: > Hi, > > I worked on a patch to make PostgreSQL binaries use the new > PQconnectdbParams() libpq functions. I tried to mimic the way Joe Conway > changed my previous patch. > > I know I'm way over the deadline for this commitfest. I couldn't do it > before because my previous patch (on this commit fest) proposed two > methods to do the new connection functions (a one array method, and a > two-arrays method). Joe chose the two arrays method. Anyways, I would > understand if it gets postponed to the first commitfest for 9.1. I think this can reasonably be seen as the final step of that patch, rather than a completely new feature. Please add it to this CF - we can always remove it if too many others object ;) -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Le 31/01/2010 13:39, Magnus Hagander a écrit : > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 09:34, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I worked on a patch to make PostgreSQL binaries use the new >> PQconnectdbParams() libpq functions. I tried to mimic the way Joe Conway >> changed my previous patch. >> >> I know I'm way over the deadline for this commitfest. I couldn't do it >> before because my previous patch (on this commit fest) proposed two >> methods to do the new connection functions (a one array method, and a >> two-arrays method). Joe chose the two arrays method. Anyways, I would >> understand if it gets postponed to the first commitfest for 9.1. > > I think this can reasonably be seen as the final step of that patch, > rather than a completely new feature. Please add it to this CF - we > can always remove it if too many others object ;) > Done (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=278). Thanks. -- Guillaume.http://www.postgresqlfr.orghttp://dalibo.com
Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> writes:
> */
> do
> {
> + const char *values[] = {
> + my_opts->hostname,
> + my_opts->port,
> + my_opts->dbname,
> + my_opts->username,
> + password,
> + "oid2name",
> + NULL
> + };
> +
> new_pass = false;
Is that really legal C89 syntax? I seem to recall that array
constructors can only be used for static assignments with older
compilers.
Also, as a matter of style, I find it pretty horrid that this isn't
immediately adjacent to the keywords array that it MUST match.
regards, tom lane
Le 31/01/2010 17:35, Tom Lane a écrit :
> Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> writes:
>
>> */
>> do
>> {
>> + const char *values[] = {
>> + my_opts->hostname,
>> + my_opts->port,
>> + my_opts->dbname,
>> + my_opts->username,
>> + password,
>> + "oid2name",
>> + NULL
>> + };
>> +
>> new_pass = false;
>
> Is that really legal C89 syntax?
I don't really know. gcc (4.4.1 release) didn't complain about it,
whereas it complained with a warning for not-legal-syntax when I had the
"new_pass = false;" statement before the array declaration.
> I seem to recall that array
> constructors can only be used for static assignments with older
> compilers.
>
> Also, as a matter of style, I find it pretty horrid that this isn't
> immediately adjacent to the keywords array that it MUST match.
>
I don't find that horrid. AFAICT, that's the only advantage of the
two-arrays method. By the way, it's that kind of code (keywords
declaration separated from values declaration) that got commited in the
previous patch
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-01/msg00398.php).
I merely used the same code for the other binaries.
--
Guillaume.http://www.postgresqlfr.orghttp://dalibo.com
On 01/31/2010 09:42 AM, Guillaume Lelarge wrote: > I don't find that horrid. AFAICT, that's the only advantage of the > two-arrays method. By the way, it's that kind of code (keywords > declaration separated from values declaration) that got commited in the > previous patch > (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-01/msg00398.php). > I merely used the same code for the other binaries. Yes, I separated them, because otherwise the compiler complained about the declaration not being at the top of a block. Of course Tom's other complaint and this one can both be satisfied by not doing the static assignment in the declaration. I'll fix the already committed code and take a look at refactoring this latest patch. I stand by the two arrays mthod decision though -- I find combining them into a single array to be unseemly. Joe
On sön, 2010-01-31 at 09:34 +0100, Guillaume Lelarge wrote: > I worked on a patch to make PostgreSQL binaries use the new > PQconnectdbParams() libpq functions. Can someone dig out the patch that Heikki had started to support psql automatically setting the client encoding? I think that's what started this whole API revision.