On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >>> Perhaps we can factor out most of this >>> into functions in backend/port/win32 so that we can re-use it fro >>> there? >> >> Sorry. I couldn't get your point. Could you explain it in detail? > > What I'm referring to is the part that Heikki writes as "The > implementation should be shared between the two, but I'm not sure > how". I think we should try to factor out things that can be shared > into separate functions and stick those in port/win32 (assuming > they're win32-specific, otherwise, in another suitable location), and > then call them from both. There seems to be a lot of things that > should be doable that way. > > I notice for example that the dblink patch doesn't have the code for > timeout handling - shouldn't it? > > I think we need to look at this as a single problem needing to be > solved, and then have the same solution applied to dblink and > walreceiver.
Thanks for the explanation. I agree that the code should be shared, but am not sure how, too. Something like libpq_select() which waits for the socket to become ready would be required for walreceiver and dblink. But it's necessary for walreceiver on not only win32 but also the other, so some functions might need to be placed in the location other than port/win32. I'll think of this issue for a while. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
