| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, "Yuto Sasaki (Fujitsu)" <sasaki(dot)yuto-00(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUG FIX]Connection fails with whitespace after keepalives parameter value |
| Date: | 2024-10-04 00:12:28 |
| Message-ID: | 494287.1728000748@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 11:57:16AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about whether
>> we should make libpq permissive about extra spaces (as per
>> Michael's patch). I guess you could argue that all of these
>> fixes are consistent with the principle of "be conservative
>> with what you send and liberal with what you accept". But at
>> most I'd fix these remaining things in HEAD.
> Removing this extra whitespace from the ECPG strings sounds good here.
> FWIW, my argument about doing this in libpq is not really related to
> ECPG: it feels inconsistent to apply one rule for the parameters and a
> different one for the values in URIs. So I'd be OK to see how this
> goes on as a HEAD-only change.
OK, if there's no objections let's push both remaining patches
to HEAD only.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | wenhui qiu | 2024-10-04 01:31:45 | Re: bgwrite process is too lazy |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-10-03 23:39:39 | Re: [BUG FIX]Connection fails with whitespace after keepalives parameter value |