Re: recovery modules

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: recovery modules
Date: 2023-02-01 21:23:26
Message-ID: 20230201212326.GA3593344@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 01:06:06PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-02-01 12:15:29 -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> Here's a new patch set in which I've attempted to address this feedback and
>> Michael's feedback.
>
> Looks better!

Thanks!

>> @@ -25,12 +34,14 @@ extern PGDLLIMPORT char *XLogArchiveLibrary;
>> * For more information about the purpose of each callback, refer to the
>> * archive modules documentation.
>> */
>> -typedef bool (*ArchiveCheckConfiguredCB) (void);
>> -typedef bool (*ArchiveFileCB) (const char *file, const char *path);
>> -typedef void (*ArchiveShutdownCB) (void);
>> +typedef void (*ArchiveStartupCB) (ArchiveModuleState *state);
>> +typedef bool (*ArchiveCheckConfiguredCB) (ArchiveModuleState *state);
>> +typedef bool (*ArchiveFileCB) (const char *file, const char *path, ArchiveModuleState *state);
>> +typedef void (*ArchiveShutdownCB) (ArchiveModuleState *state);
>
> Personally I'd always pass ArchiveModuleState *state as the first arg,
> but it's not important.

Yeah, that's nicer. cfbot is complaining about a missing #include, so I
need to send a new revision anyway.

--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
v4-0001-s-ArchiveContext-ArchiveCallbacks.patch text/x-diff 2.8 KB
v4-0002-move-archive-module-exports-to-dedicated-headers.patch text/x-diff 6.9 KB
v4-0003-restructure-archive-modules-API.patch text/x-diff 13.8 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2023-02-01 21:44:31 Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning
Previous Message Robert Haas 2023-02-01 21:14:10 Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning