From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Ian Barwick <ian.barwick@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: PG12, PGXS and linking pgfeutils
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 15:33:17 -0400
Message-ID: <9755.1557775997@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <27315.1557424032@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <20190509173911.GA16616@alvherre.pgsql>
<27315.1557424032@sss.pgh.pa.us>
I wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> I wonder if a better solution isn't to move the file_utils stuff to
>> fe_utils. Half of it is frontend-specific. The only one that should be
>> shared to backend seems to be fsync_fname ... but instead of sharing it,
>> we have a second copy in fd.c.
> Hm, if file_utils is the only thing in common/ that uses this, and we
> expect that to remain true, that would fix the issue. But ...
Thumbing through commit cc8d41511, I see that it already touched
five common/ modules
diff --git a/src/common/controldata_utils.c b/src/common/controldata_utils.cdiff --git a/src/common/file_utils.c b/src/common/file_utils.cdiff --git a/src/common/pgfnames.c b/src/common/pgfnames.cdiff --git a/src/common/restricted_token.c b/src/common/restricted_token.cdiff --git a/src/common/rmtree.c b/src/common/rmtree.c
Several of those have substantial backend components, so moving them
to fe_utils is a nonstarter. I think moving fe_utils/logging.[hc] to
common/ is definitely the way to get out of this problem.
I started working on a patch to do that, and soon noticed that there
are pre-existing files logging.[hc] in src/bin/pg_rewind/. This seems
like a Bad Thing, in fact the #includes in pg_rewind/ are already a
little confused due to this. I think we should either rename those
two pg_rewind files to something else, or rename the generic ones,
perhaps to "fe_logging.[hc]". The latter could be done nearly
trivially as part of the movement patch, but on cosmetic grounds
I'd be more inclined to do the former instead. Thoughts?
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, ian.barwick@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: PG12, PGXS and linking pgfeutils
In-Reply-To: <9755.1557775997@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox