Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
It doesn't - but it makes it harder to find the issue I think :-( If it was reasonably easy, an API redesign might help that. But I haven't looked at all at the possibility of doing so, so I won't comment on if it's likely to be doable. //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
