Re: recovery modules
От | Nathan Bossart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: recovery modules |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20230130193820.GB2740781@nathanxps13 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: recovery modules (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 04:51:38PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > Now, I find this part, where we use a double pointer to allow the > module initialization to create and give back a private area, rather > confusing, and I think that this could be bug-prone, as well. Once > you incorporate some data within the set of callbacks, isn't this > stuff close to a "state" data, or just something that we could call > only an "ArchiveModule"? Could it make more sense to have > _PG_archive_module_init return a structure with everything rather than > a separate in/out argument? Here is the idea, simply: > typedef struct ArchiveModule { > ArchiveCallbacks *routines; > void *private_data; > /* Potentially more here, like some flags? */ > } ArchiveModule; Yeah, we could probably invent an ArchiveModuleContext struct. I think this is similar to how LogicalDecodingContext is used. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: