From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
---|---|
To: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [pg_rewind] use the passing callback instead of global function |
Date: | 2023-04-26 08:48:16 |
Message-ID: | 9AB442EB-1B8D-43AB-901D-346F9F264878@yesql.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 26 Apr 2023, at 10:33, Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 9:51 AM Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com <mailto:zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
> `local_traverse_files` and `libpq_traverse_files` both have a
> callback parameter but instead use the global process_source_file
> which is no good for function encapsulation.
>
> Nice catch. This should be a typo introduced by 37d2ff38.
Agreed, I'll look at applying this after some testing.
> While this patch is doing it correctly, I'm wondering that since both
> kinds of source server (libpq and local) are using the same function
> (i.e. process_source_file) to process source file list for
> traverse_files operations, do we really need to provide a callback? Or
> will there be some kind of source server that may use different source
> file processing function?
While there isn't one right now, removing the callback seems like imposing a
restriction that the refactoring in 37d2ff38 aimed to avoid.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | gkokolatos | 2023-04-26 08:50:46 | Re: Add LZ4 compression in pg_dump |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2023-04-26 08:47:43 | Re: Option to not use ringbuffer in VACUUM, using it in failsafe mode |