On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that we could get a committer look at that at the least.
This is sort of awkward, because it would be nice to reuse the code
for the existing SHOW command rather than reinventing the wheel, but
it's not very easy to do that, primarily because there are a number of
places which rely on being able to do catalog access, which is not
possible with a replication connection in hand. I got it working
after hacking various things, so I have a complete list of the
problems involved:
1. ShowGUCConfigOption() calls TupleDescInitEntry(), which does a
catcache lookup to get the types pg_type entry. This isn't any big
problem; I hacked around it by adding a TupleDescInitBuiltinEntry()
which knows about the types that guc.c (and likely other builtins)
care about.
2. SendRowDescriptionMessage calls getBaseTypeAndTypmod(), which does
a catcache lookup to figure out whether the type is a domain. I
short-circuited it by having it assume anything with an OID less than
10000 is not a domain.
3. printtup_prepare_info calls getTypeOutputInfo(), which does a
catcache lookup to figure out the type output function's OID and
whether it's a varlena. I bypassed that with an unspeakable hack.
4. printtup.c's code in general assumes that a DR_printtup always has
a portal. It doesn't seem to mind if the portal doesn't contain
anything very meaningful, but it has to have one. This problem has
nothing to do with catalog access, but it's a problem. I solved it by
(surprise) creating a portal, but I am not sure that's a very good
idea.
Problems 2-4 actually have to do with a DestReceiver of type
DestRemote really, really wanting to have an associated Portal and
database connection, so one approach is to create a stripped-down
DestReceiver that doesn't care about those things and then passing
that to GetPGVariable. That's not any less code than the way Beena
coded it, of course; it's probably more. On the other hand, the
stripped-down DestReciever implementation is more likely to be usable
the next time somebody wants to add a new replication command, whereas
this ad-hoc code to directly construct protocol messages will not be
reusable.
Opinions? (Hacked-up patch attached for educational purposes.)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers