Re: Application name patch - v3

Le 07/01/2010 19:13, Robert Haas a écrit :
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Guillaume Lelarge
> <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote:
>> Le 04/01/2010 22:36, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit :
>>> Le 29/12/2009 14:12, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit :
>>>> Le 29/12/2009 00:03, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit :
>>>>> Le 28/12/2009 22:59, Tom Lane a écrit :
>>>>>> Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> writes:
>>>>>>> Le 28/12/2009 17:06, Tom Lane a écrit :
>>>>>>>> I think we were stalled on the question of whether to use one array
>>>>>>>> or two parallel arrays.  Do you want to try coding up a sample usage
>>>>>>>> of each possibility so we can see which one seems more useful?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm interested in working on this. But I don't find the thread that talk
>>>>>>> about this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try here
>>>>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4AAE8CCF.9070808@esilo.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks. I've read all the "new version of PQconnectdb" and "Determining
>>>>> client_encoding from client locale" threads. I think I understand the
>>>>> goal. Still need to re-read this one
>>>>> (http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/6222.1253734019@sss.pgh.pa.us) and
>>>>> completely understand it (will probably need to look at the code, at
>>>>> least the PQconnectdb one). But I'm definitely working on this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I try to sum up my readings so far, this is what we still have to do:
>>>>
>>>> 1. try the one-array approach
>>>>    PGconn *PQconnectParams(const char **params)
>>>>
>>>> 2. try the two-arrays approach
>>>>    PGconn *PQconnectParams(const char **keywords, const char **values)
>>>>
>>>> Instead of doing a wrapper around PQconnectdb, we need to refactor the
>>>> whole function, so that we can get rid of the parsing of the conninfo
>>>> string (which is quite complicated).
>>>>
>>>> Using psql as an example would be a good idea, AFAICT.
>>>>
>>>> Am I right? did I misunderstand or forget something?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I supposed I was right since noone yell at me :)
>>>
>>> I worked on this tonight. You'll find two patches attached, one for the
>>> one-array approach, one for the two-arrays approach. I know some more
>>> factoring can be done (at least, the "get the fallback resources..."
>>> part). I'm OK to do them. I just need to know if I'm on the right track.
>>>
>>
>> Hmmm... sorry but... can i have some comments on these two patches, please?
> 
> I would suggest adding your patch(es) to:
> 
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/open
> 
> Probably just one entry for the two of them would be most appropriate.
> 

Done. Thanks.


-- 
Guillaume.http://www.postgresqlfr.orghttp://dalibo.com