On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 7:41 AM Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org> wrote: > > On 24.03.25 21:33, Matheus Alcantara wrote: > >> I'm a bit confused about the refactoring patch 0001. There are some > >> details there that don't seem right. For example, you write that the > >> pfree(rconn) calls are no longer necessary, but AFAICT, it would still > >> be needed in dblink_get_conn(). Also, there appear to be some possible > >> behavior changes, or at least it's not fully explained, like > >> connect_pg_server() doing foreign-server name resolution, which > >> dblink_get_conn() did not do before. > >> > >> But it's actually not clear to me how the refactoring in 0001 > >> contributes to making the patch 0002 better, since patch 0002 barely > >> touches the code touched by 0001. > >> > >> How would patch 0002 look without 0001 before it? Which code would need > >> to be duplicated or what other awkward changes are you trying to avoid? > > You are right, I think that the refactor was needed on the initial > > versions of the patch because it was referencing the UseScramPassthrough > > function in multiple places, so the refactor was needed to accomplish the > > parameters of the function. > > > > Since we now assume that the UseScramPassthrough is already checked on > > some parts of the code I agree that this refactor is not required > > anymore. Attached v11 without the refactor patch. > > Committed. > > I cut down the documentation a bit and instead linked to postgres_fdw > for some of the details. I think that's better than having to maintain > that text in two different places.
Thanks! -- Matheus Alcantara
