Re: Application name patch - v3

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Guillaume Lelarge
<guillaume@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 <guillaume@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.9070808@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/6222.1253734019@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.

...Robert