On 2013-01-08 17:28:33 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Uhm, we don't have & need palloc support and I don't think > > relpathbackend() is a good justification for adding it. > > FWIW, I'm with Tom on this one. Any meaningful code sharing is going > to need that, so we might as well bite the bullet.
Yes, if we set the scope bigger than xlogreader I aggree. If its xlogreader itself I don't. But as I happen to think we should share more code... Will prepare a patch. I wonder whether it would be acceptable to make palloc() an actual function instead of #define palloc(sz) MemoryContextAlloc(CurrentMemoryContext, (sz)) so we don't have to expose CurrentMemoryContext? Alternatively we can "just" move the whole of utils/mmgr/* to port, but that would imply an elog/ereport wrapper... > And functions that return static buffers are evil incarnate. I've > spent way too much of my life dealing with the supreme idiocy that is > fmtId(). If someone ever finds a way to make that go away, I will buy > them a beverage of their choice at the next conference we're both at. Imo it depends on the circumstances and number of possible callers, but anyway, it seems to be already decided that my suggestion isn't the way to go. Greetings, Andres Freund -- 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
