Re: dblink versus long connection strings - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: dblink versus long connection strings
Date
Msg-id 29273.1290446496@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: dblink versus long connection strings  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: dblink versus long connection strings
Re: dblink versus long connection strings
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 11/22/2010 12:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, because = isn't disallowed in names ...

> Ok, true, but it still might not be a bad heuristic to use for issuing a 
> warning on lookup.

The fine manual says that using "=" in a connection name might be unwise
because of the risk of confusion.  It doesn't say that you should expect
to get a NOTICE every single time you use the name.  People have
complained of postmaster log bloat for lots less reason than this.

In any case I don't see an argument why warning on connection creation
isn't sufficient.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: format() with embedded to_char() formatter
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Proposed Windows-specific change: Enable crash dumps (like core files)