On Monday, July 23, 2012 05:11:20 PM Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Monday, July 23, 2012 04:17:39 PM Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> > > > > wrote: > >> > On Thursday, July 19, 2012 07:18:08 PM Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: > >> >> I agree with that we need more sophisticated way to share the code > >> >> between the backend and several utilities (including xlogdump), > >> >> but AFAIK, a contrib module must allow to be built *without* the core > >> >> source tree. > >> > > >> > I don't think thats reasonable. The amount of code duplication > >> > required to support that usecase is just not reasonable. Especially > >> > if you want to support pre 9.3 and 9.3+. > >> > >> It seems like the direction this is going is that the xlog reading > >> stuff should be a library which is used by both the backend and 1 or > >> more xlog decoding tools. > > > > Thats fine for the xlogreader itself - it only uses stuff from headers. > > The problem is that the xlog debugging/printing infrastructure is pretty > > much guaranteed to include just about the whole backend... > > Could that be fixed by moving the debugging routines into a separate > set of files, instead of having them lumped in with the code that > applies those xlog records? Its a major effort. Those function use elog(), stringinfo and lots of other stuff... I am hesitant to start working on that. On the other hand - I think an in-core xlogdump would be great and sensible thing; but I can live with using my hacked up version that simply links to the backend...
Greetings, Andres -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
