| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | egashira(dot)yusuke(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Is it typo of connection_name? |
| Date: | 2019-09-18 01:49:14 |
| Message-ID: | 20190918014914.GJ8909@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 08:39:27AM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> The "connection_name" parameter's explanation is not in Parameters
> section.
> Instead of it, "connection_object" parameter is in Parameters section. Its
> explanation seems about "connection_name".
> Is it typo about "connection_name" in Synopsis section, or
> "connection_object" in Parameters section?
Good catch. If you look at the code (ecpg.trailer), connection_object
refers to the name of the parameter, while connection_name refers to
"AS connection_object" as a whole. So it seems to me that the
intention is to use connection_object in the synopsis of the docs.
Any thoughts from others?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PG Doc comments form | 2019-09-18 17:47:55 | dblink version noted at top of documentation |
| Previous Message | Egashira, Yusuke | 2019-09-18 00:32:40 | RE: About limitation characters in ECPG's connection string |