On 08.09.2011 23:45, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On 8 September 2011 15:43, Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I wouldn't be too enthusiastic about
>> starting a project like this in January, but now seems fine. A bigger
>> problem is that I don't hear anyone volunteering to do the work.
>
> You seem to have a fairly strong opinion on the xlog.c code. It would
> be useful to hear any preliminary thoughts that you might have on what
> we'd end up with when this refactoring work is finished. If I'm not
> mistaken, you think that it is a good candidate for being refactored
> not so much because of its size, but for other reasons - could you
> please elaborate on those? In particular, I'd like to know what
> boundaries it is envisaged that the code should be refactored along to
> increase its conceptual integrity, or to better separate concerns. I
> assume that that's the idea, since each new .c file would have to have
> a discrete purpose.
I'd like to see it split into routines involved in writing WAL, and
those involved in recovery. And maybe a third file for archiving-related
stuff.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com