On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Joachim Wieland <j...@mcknight.de> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> And just for added fun and excitement, they all have inconsistent >> naming conventions and inadequate documentation. >> >> I think if we need more refactoring in order to support multiple >> database connections, we should go do that refactoring. The current >> situation is not serving anyone well. > > I guess I'd find it cleaner to have just one connection per Archive > (or ArchiveHandle). If you need two connections, why not just have two > Archive objects, as they would have different characteristics anyway, > one for dumping data, one to restore.
I think we're more-or-less proposing to rename "Archive" to "Connection", aren't we? And then ArchiveHandle can store all the things that aren't related to a specific connection. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
