Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> I'll try. It's unfortunately not as simple as it sounds, because of the
>> way the abstractions are arranged. I can't count the number of times I
>> have had to stop and try to clear my head while working on this code.
> That's what killed me when I tried to review that stuff and figure it out.
> Does that indicate that the abstractions are bad and should be changed,
> or just that there's no reasonably way to make the abstractions both
> make sense for the internal API itself *and* for being threadsafe?
I think pretty much everybody except Philip Warner has found the stuff
around the TOC data structure and the "archiver" API to be confusing.
I'm not immediately sure about a better design though, at least not if
you don't want to duplicate a lot of code between the plain pg_dump and
the pg_dump/pg_restore cases.
I don't see that this has much of anything to do with thread safety,
however --- it's just a matter of too many layers of indirection IMHO.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
