From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)toroid(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Wire protocol docs |
Date: | 2009-10-13 17:53:56 |
Message-ID: | 937d27e10910131053n371b996ey98ae2f92b4e38001@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
>> Right. My complaint though, is that the docs imply that the info on
>> how those values get set is in the docs somewhere, which appears to be
>> incorrect.
>
> The libpq documentation does cover the fact that libpq uses those
> variables to establish initial settings. I wouldn't expect it to
> go into implementation details, would you?
Not the libpq docs, no. I was expecting something to though, having
been told in the intro to the low level protocol details that:
"Higher level features built on this protocol (for example, how libpq
passes certain environment variables when the connection is
established) are covered elsewhere."
Note that it says *how* libpq passes those variables which implies the
mechanism of passing them to the server. Anyway, I can figure out what
I need from the existing code - I just found that sentence misleading
and think it should probably be removed.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2009-10-13 18:07:52 | Re: Client application name |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-10-13 17:53:12 | Re: transaction_isolation vs. default_transaction_isolation |