On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 9:37 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 11:05:36AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > So with that in mind, here's my proposal. This is an adjustment of > > Amit's previous refactoring patch. He renamed the existing > > get_controlfile() to get_dir_controlfile() and made a new > > get_controlfile() that accepted the path to the control file itself. I > > chose to instead leave the existing get_controlfile() alone and add a > > new get_controlfile_by_exact_path(). I think this is better, because > > most of the existing callers find it more convenient to pass the path > > to the data directory rather than the path to the controlfile, so the > > patch is smaller this way, and less prone to cause headaches for > > people back-patching or maintaining out-of-core code. But it still > > gives us a way to avoid repeatedly constructing the same pathname. > > Yes, that was my primary concern with the previous versions of the > patch. > > > If nobody objects, I plan to commit this version. > > You are not changing silently the internals of get_controlfile(), so > no objections here. The name of the new routine could be shorter, but > being short of ideas what you are proposing looks fine by me. > Could be get_controlfile_by_path() ? Regards, Amul
