From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dmitriy Igrishin <dmitigr(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PQconninfoParse() |
Date: | 2011-10-19 00:07:05 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY3dNQBjB1SBq_b6Rqj6atHUu9R=eAQbF551qYwAkO6dg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Maybe we should change this:
>
>> Note that only options explicitly specified in the string will have
>> values set in the result array; no defaults are inserted.
>
>> To say something like this:
>
>> All legal options will be present in the result array, but only those
>> explicitly specified in the string will have a corresponding value; no
>> defaults are inserted.
>
> Uh, is that actually a true statement? I thought the result *did*
> include default values. That's more or less the point of returning them
> all, after all.
Well, then I'm confused, because you and Dmitriy seem to be saying
opposite things.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-10-19 00:15:13 | Re: description of CHECKPOINT command confusing |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-10-17 14:28:08 | Re: after failover? |