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? -- 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
