On 08.09.2011 23:45, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 8 September 2011 15:43, Robert Haas<robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
I wouldn't be too enthusiastic about
starting a project like this in January, but now seems fine. A bigger
problem is that I don't hear anyone volunteering to do the work.
You seem to have a fairly strong opinion on the xlog.c code. It would
be useful to hear any preliminary thoughts that you might have on what
we'd end up with when this refactoring work is finished. If I'm not
mistaken, you think that it is a good candidate for being refactored
not so much because of its size, but for other reasons - could you
please elaborate on those? In particular, I'd like to know what
boundaries it is envisaged that the code should be refactored along to
increase its conceptual integrity, or to better separate concerns. I
assume that that's the idea, since each new .c file would have to have
a discrete purpose.
I'd like to see it split into routines involved in writing WAL, and
those involved in recovery. And maybe a third file for archiving-related
stuff.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
