Re: Clean up command argument assembly
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>,
pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-02-04T18:02:03Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> writes: > Should anything outside of libpq be using PQExpBuffer? Perhaps not. PQExpBuffer's behavior for OOM cases is designed specifically for libpq, where exit-on-OOM is not okay and we can hope to include failure checks wherever needed. For most of our application code, we'd much rather just exit-on-OOM and not have to think about failure checks at the call sites. Having said that, converting stuff like pg_dump would be quite awful in terms of code churn and creating a back-patching nightmare. Would it make any sense to think about having two sets of routines with identical call APIs, but different failure behavior, so that we don't have to touch the callers? regards, tom lane
Commits
-
Use extensible buffers to assemble command lines
- e70abd67c3e6 17.0 landed
-
Clean up command argument assembly
- cccdbc5d95ac 17.0 landed