From: | Igor Korot <ikorot01(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Connection options |
Date: | 2017-06-15 21:41:46 |
Message-ID: | CA+FnnTwLxPXdMiescnZ0KHwXMkd7i3H6zjTX_M45h8VGwnRrsQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi, David,
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:46 PM, David G. Johnston
<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Igor Korot <ikorot01(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> And could you clarify on the first part of this?
>> From the quote I poste it sounds like this is available only in
>> command-line
>> tools. And if someone will use it inside the program it will be ignored.
>
>
> The options you pass from the client via the "options" attribute are
> interpreted by *the server* as command-line options. They are not options
> that control libpq itself.
Can you give an example or try to explain it?
What do you mean by "interpreted by the server as command-line options"?
Does this mean I can just ignore this parameter inside my C{++} program?
Or I can set some options and pass it to the server thru this parameter?
>
> I can kinda see the confusion here but I'm not sure how to write it more
> clearly without being excessively verbose. I haven't seen this particular
> confusion before so I'd say the wording is reasonable and the mailing lists
> are doing their job of providing a forum for providing clarity.
Well for someone who is just started with PostgreSQL and C interface it is
confusing.
Thank you.
>
> David J.
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2017-06-15 21:47:29 | Re: Connection options |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2017-06-15 20:46:25 | Re: Connection options |