On 08/25/2014 10:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 08/25/2014 09:22 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
>>> I agree that refactoring this would be nice in the long-term, and I also
>>> agree that it's probably OK as it is in the short-term. I don't like the
>>> name PSQLexecInternal, though. PSQLexec is used for "internal" commands
>>> anyway. In fact it's backwards, because PSQLexecInternal is used for
>>> non-internal queries, given by \watch, while PSQLexec is used for internal
>>> commands.
>>
>> Agreed. So what about PSQLexecCommon (inspired by
>> the relation between LWLockAcquireCommon and LWLockAcquire)?
>> Or any better name?
>
> Actually, perhaps it would be better to just copy-paste PSQLexec, and
> modify the copy to suite \watch's needs. (PSQLexecWatch?
> SendWatchQuery?). PSQLexec doesn't do much, and there isn't very much
> overlap between what \watch wants and what other PSQLexec callers want.
> \watch wants timing output, others don't. \watch doesn't want
> transaction handling. Do we want --echo-hidden to print the \watch'd
> query? Not sure..
BTW, I just noticed that none of the callers of PSQLexec pass
"start_xact=true". So that part of the function is dead code. We might
want to remove it, and replace with a comment noting that PSQLexec never
starts a new transaction block, even in autocommit-off mode. (I know
you're hacking on this, so I didnn't want to joggle your elbow by doing
it right now)
- Heikki