From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: elkzwix@gmail.com
cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Discrepancy between the documentation and the implementation
In-reply-to: 
 <169824721149.1769274.1553568436817652238@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
References: <169824721149.1769274.1553568436817652238@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
Comments: In-reply-to PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
	message dated "Wed, 25 Oct 2023 15:20:11 -0000"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1009482.1698258714.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 14:31:54 -0400
Message-ID: <1009483.1698258714@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1009483.1698258714%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> In the documentation for Postgres 15, on page
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/ecpg-sql-set-connection.html, it states
> that one can write:

> SET CONNECTION connection_name

> And under that, it talks about "connection_name" and DEFAULT, which is
> supposed to be used in order to use the "default connection".
> However, "SET CONNECTION DEFAULT" is treated by ECPG as a normal connection
> name (looking for a connection named "DEFAULT"), not as a special keyword
> meaning to go back to using the "default" connection.

> Is there something I'm missing there ?

I don't see it either.  Both that and EXEC SQL DISCONNECT claim
that DEFAULT is a specially treated name, but I don't see anything
in the underlying code that treats it differently.  Perhaps there
was an intention to have some such feature but it never got done?

Anyway, I don't see anything indicating that there's actually
such a concept as "the default connection".  I suggest we just
remove those paragraphs.

What *is* treated specially is CURRENT --- but EXEC SQL SET
CONNECTION = CURRENT is effectively a no-op, so it's not very
exciting.

			regards, tom lane