Le 07/01/2010 19:13, Robert Haas a écrit : > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Guillaume Lelarge > <guilla...@lelarge.info> wrote: >> Le 04/01/2010 22:36, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit : >>> Le 29/12/2009 14:12, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit : >>>> Le 29/12/2009 00:03, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit : >>>>> Le 28/12/2009 22:59, Tom Lane a écrit : >>>>>> Guillaume Lelarge <guilla...@lelarge.info> writes: >>>>>>> Le 28/12/2009 17:06, Tom Lane a écrit : >>>>>>>> I think we were stalled on the question of whether to use one array >>>>>>>> or two parallel arrays. Do you want to try coding up a sample usage >>>>>>>> of each possibility so we can see which one seems more useful? >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm interested in working on this. But I don't find the thread that talk >>>>>>> about this. >>>>>> >>>>>> Try here >>>>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4aae8ccf.9070...@esilo.com >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. I've read all the "new version of PQconnectdb" and "Determining >>>>> client_encoding from client locale" threads. I think I understand the >>>>> goal. Still need to re-read this one >>>>> (http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/6222.1253734...@sss.pgh.pa.us) >>>>> and >>>>> completely understand it (will probably need to look at the code, at >>>>> least the PQconnectdb one). But I'm definitely working on this. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If I try to sum up my readings so far, this is what we still have to do: >>>> >>>> 1. try the one-array approach >>>> PGconn *PQconnectParams(const char **params) >>>> >>>> 2. try the two-arrays approach >>>> PGconn *PQconnectParams(const char **keywords, const char **values) >>>> >>>> Instead of doing a wrapper around PQconnectdb, we need to refactor the >>>> whole function, so that we can get rid of the parsing of the conninfo >>>> string (which is quite complicated). >>>> >>>> Using psql as an example would be a good idea, AFAICT. >>>> >>>> Am I right? did I misunderstand or forget something? >>>> >>> >>> I supposed I was right since noone yell at me :) >>> >>> I worked on this tonight. You'll find two patches attached, one for the >>> one-array approach, one for the two-arrays approach. I know some more >>> factoring can be done (at least, the "get the fallback resources..." >>> part). I'm OK to do them. I just need to know if I'm on the right track. >>> >> >> Hmmm... sorry but... can i have some comments on these two patches, please? > > I would suggest adding your patch(es) to: > > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/open > > Probably just one entry for the two of them would be most appropriate. >
Done. Thanks. -- Guillaume. http://www.postgresqlfr.org http://dalibo.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
