Обсуждение: pgsql: Unify some tar functionality across different parts
Unify some tar functionality across different parts Move some of the tar functionality that existed mostly duplicated in both pg_dump and the walsender basebackup functionality into port/tar.c instead, so it can be used from both. It will also be used by pg_basebackup in the future, which would've caused a third copy of it around. Zoltan Boszormenyi and Magnus Hagander Branch ------ master Details ------- http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/f5d4bdd3a5c1b7987a257b2a64e977501338af0d Modified Files -------------- src/backend/replication/basebackup.c | 128 +----------------------------- src/bin/pg_dump/pg_backup_tar.c | 105 +------------------------ src/include/port.h | 4 + src/port/Makefile | 2 +- src/port/tar.c | 143 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 5 files changed, 154 insertions(+), 228 deletions(-)
On 01/01/2013 12:25 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Unify some tar functionality across different parts > > Move some of the tar functionality that existed mostly duplicated > in both pg_dump and the walsender basebackup functionality into > port/tar.c instead, so it can be used from both. It will also be > used by pg_basebackup in the future, which would've caused a third > copy of it around. > > This seems to have broken plperl builds on Windows. Not sure what the fix is. cheers andrew
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:14 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
-- This seems to have broken plperl builds on Windows. Not sure what the fix is.
On 01/01/2013 12:25 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:Unify some tar functionality across different parts
Move some of the tar functionality that existed mostly duplicated
in both pg_dump and the walsender basebackup functionality into
port/tar.c instead, so it can be used from both. It will also be
used by pg_basebackup in the future, which would've caused a third
copy of it around.
It seems if plperl exists it does *not* have the uid_t and gid_t datatypes? port.h has this:
/*
* Supplement to <sys/types.h>.
*
* Perl already has typedefs for uid_t and gid_t.
*/
#ifndef PLPERL_HAVE_UID_GID
typedef int uid_t;
typedef int gid_t;
#endif
So either that's not true anymore, or we're including things in the wrong order, I think.
I'm not sure where those are supposed to come from - they're not mentioned anywhere in plperl. But maybe they're leaking in from the global perl headers?
We could fix this by just changing the parameters to the tarCreateHeader() function to take int instead of uid_t, but that seems like the wrong fix to me. We should at least try to figure out why it's happening in the first place. What happens if you just remove that #ifndef on a win build with perl (sorry, don't have one around at the time - so if you have one, it would me much helpful if you could test it) - do we get a different error, or have we changed around the code and just forgotten that ifdef?
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:14 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote: >> >> >> On 01/01/2013 12:25 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> >>> Unify some tar functionality across different parts >>> >>> Move some of the tar functionality that existed mostly duplicated >>> in both pg_dump and the walsender basebackup functionality into >>> port/tar.c instead, so it can be used from both. It will also be >>> used by pg_basebackup in the future, which would've caused a third >>> copy of it around. >>> >>> >> >> >> This seems to have broken plperl builds on Windows. Not sure what the fix >> is. >> > > It seems if plperl exists it does *not* have the uid_t and gid_t datatypes? > port.h has this: > > /* > * Supplement to <sys/types.h>. > * > * Perl already has typedefs for uid_t and gid_t. > */ > #ifndef PLPERL_HAVE_UID_GID > typedef int uid_t; > typedef int gid_t; > #endif > > So either that's not true anymore, or we're including things in the wrong > order, I think. > > I'm not sure where those are supposed to come from - they're not mentioned > anywhere in plperl. But maybe they're leaking in from the global perl > headers? > > We could fix this by just changing the parameters to the tarCreateHeader() > function to take int instead of uid_t, but that seems like the wrong fix to > me. We should at least try to figure out why it's happening in the first > place. What happens if you just remove that #ifndef on a win build with perl > (sorry, don't have one around at the time - so if you have one, it would me > much helpful if you could test it) - do we get a different error, or have we > changed around the code and just forgotten that ifdef? Got an env working. So it is an ordering issue. If I remove that #ifdef, I get an error that the perl headers are redefining uid_t and gid_t to the same thing that they already are. So basically our problem is that the perl headers are polluting the namespace, and our old workaround doesn't work due to include ordering. The problem is that this part of port/win32.h relies on it being included first, and then the perl headers, before anybody can use uid_t. Which means we can't use it anywhere in our own headers, which is what causes this problem. If it was a #define, we could just #undef it before including the perl headers. But since it's a typedef, we can't. I'm not really sure what the best thing is to do here. We can either use the fact that we know that uid_t and gid_t are "int" on all our platforms, more or less, and change the tar api to use uid_t. Or put the tar functions in their own header and make sure we don't include that one anywhere that we include the perl headers. Thoughts? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:14 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>>> This seems to have broken plperl builds on Windows.
> I'm not really sure what the best thing is to do here. We can either
> use the fact that we know that uid_t and gid_t are "int" on all our
> platforms, more or less, and change the tar api to use uid_t. Or put
> the tar functions in their own header and make sure we don't include
> that one anywhere that we include the perl headers.
Why are these very tar-specific functions being declared in such a
globally visible spot as port.h? That seems like a bad idea on its
face. IMO stuff in port.h ought to be about as globally applicable
as, say, malloc().
If there's actually a reason for that sort of namespace abuse, then
change their parameters to int --- IIRC, the tar format can't support
UIDs wider than 32 bits anyway.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:14 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote: >>>> This seems to have broken plperl builds on Windows. > >> I'm not really sure what the best thing is to do here. We can either >> use the fact that we know that uid_t and gid_t are "int" on all our >> platforms, more or less, and change the tar api to use uid_t. Or put >> the tar functions in their own header and make sure we don't include >> that one anywhere that we include the perl headers. > > Why are these very tar-specific functions being declared in such a > globally visible spot as port.h? That seems like a bad idea on its > face. IMO stuff in port.h ought to be about as globally applicable > as, say, malloc(). It's where we put most of the things from src/port in. I take it you suggest moving it to a special say include/pgtar.h file? > If there's actually a reason for that sort of namespace abuse, then > change their parameters to int --- IIRC, the tar format can't support > UIDs wider than 32 bits anyway. Andrew suggested #ifndef'ing the declarations the same way that the typedefs for uid_t and gid_t are done as another optin. I don't really find either one of them non-kludgy :) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Why are these very tar-specific functions being declared in such a
>> globally visible spot as port.h? That seems like a bad idea on its
>> face. IMO stuff in port.h ought to be about as globally applicable
>> as, say, malloc().
> It's where we put most of the things from src/port in.
Might be time to revisit that, or perhaps better reconsider what we're
putting in src/port/. The idea that anything that we want in both
frontend and backend is a porting issue seems a bit busted in itself.
> I take it you suggest moving it to a special say include/pgtar.h file?
Works for me.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Why are these very tar-specific functions being declared in such a >>> globally visible spot as port.h? That seems like a bad idea on its >>> face. IMO stuff in port.h ought to be about as globally applicable >>> as, say, malloc(). > >> It's where we put most of the things from src/port in. > > Might be time to revisit that, or perhaps better reconsider what we're > putting in src/port/. The idea that anything that we want in both > frontend and backend is a porting issue seems a bit busted in itself. Yeah, true - but there's certainly other parts that think the same, so that's a separate issue. >> I take it you suggest moving it to a special say include/pgtar.h file? > > Works for me. Applied. Should hopefully work once Alvaro gets the buildfarm back to green. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/