From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: egashira.yusuke@jp.fujitsu.com
To: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Is it typo of connection_name?
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 13:20:49 +0900
Message-ID: <20190919042049.GE22307@paquier.xyz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190918014914.GJ8909@paquier.xyz>
References: <156870956796.1259.11456186889345212399@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
<20190918014914.GJ8909@paquier.xyz>
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:49:14AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Good catch. If you look at the code (ecpg.trailer), connection_object
> refers to the name of the parameter, while connection_name refers to
> "AS connection_object" as a whole. So it seems to me that the
> intention is to use connection_object in the synopsis of the docs.
> Any thoughts from others?
Actually, looking around we use connection_name for other commands
like EXEC SQL or DISCONNECT, so renaming connection_object to
connection_name makes the documentation more consistent. And done.
--
Michael
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 832B) download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: michael@paquier.xyz, egashira.yusuke@jp.fujitsu.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Is it typo of connection_name?
In-Reply-To: <20190919042049.GE22307@paquier.xyz>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox