On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Guillaume Lelarge <guilla...@lelarge.info> wrote: > Le 04/01/2010 22:36, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit : >> Le 29/12/2009 14:12, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit : >>> Le 29/12/2009 00:03, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit : >>>> Le 28/12/2009 22:59, Tom Lane a écrit : >>>>> Guillaume Lelarge <guilla...@lelarge.info> writes: >>>>>> Le 28/12/2009 17:06, Tom Lane a écrit : >>>>>>> I think we were stalled on the question of whether to use one array >>>>>>> or two parallel arrays. Do you want to try coding up a sample usage >>>>>>> of each possibility so we can see which one seems more useful? >>>>> >>>>>> I'm interested in working on this. But I don't find the thread that talk >>>>>> about this. >>>>> >>>>> Try here >>>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4aae8ccf.9070...@esilo.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks. I've read all the "new version of PQconnectdb" and "Determining >>>> client_encoding from client locale" threads. I think I understand the >>>> goal. Still need to re-read this one >>>> (http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/6222.1253734...@sss.pgh.pa.us) >>>> and >>>> completely understand it (will probably need to look at the code, at >>>> least the PQconnectdb one). But I'm definitely working on this. >>>> >>> >>> If I try to sum up my readings so far, this is what we still have to do: >>> >>> 1. try the one-array approach >>> PGconn *PQconnectParams(const char **params) >>> >>> 2. try the two-arrays approach >>> PGconn *PQconnectParams(const char **keywords, const char **values) >>> >>> Instead of doing a wrapper around PQconnectdb, we need to refactor the >>> whole function, so that we can get rid of the parsing of the conninfo >>> string (which is quite complicated). >>> >>> Using psql as an example would be a good idea, AFAICT. >>> >>> Am I right? did I misunderstand or forget something? >>> >> >> I supposed I was right since noone yell at me :) >> >> I worked on this tonight. You'll find two patches attached, one for the >> one-array approach, one for the two-arrays approach. I know some more >> factoring can be done (at least, the "get the fallback resources..." >> part). I'm OK to do them. I just need to know if I'm on the right track. >> > > Hmmm... sorry but... can i have some comments on these two patches, please?
I would suggest adding your patch(es) to: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/open Probably just one entry for the two of them would be most appropriate. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
