Re: dblink un-named connection doesn't get re-used - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joe Conway
Subject Re: dblink un-named connection doesn't get re-used
Date
Msg-id 471932C4.3070405@joeconway.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: dblink un-named connection doesn't get re-used  (Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org>)
Responses Re: dblink un-named connection doesn't get re-used
List pgsql-hackers
Decibel! wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2007, at 11:17 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
>>
>> Seriously though, I can change it for 8.3, but is it really worth  
>> back-patching?
> 
> I think it'd be worth changing for 8.3. While C forces you to worry  
> about memory, SQL does not, so I bet this is a surprise to most folks.

I don't think anyone has ever noticed -- certainly not enough to 
complain in the past 5 years. This behavior has been the same since day 
one. I don't mind changing it, but I don't see it as a big deal.

> 
> It might be worth backpatching the docs, because they're wrong.

How so? Please provide better wording if you don't like what it 
currently says. Simply saying it is wrong is unhelpful.

Joe


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Decibel!
Date:
Subject: Re: dblink un-named connection doesn't get re-used
Next
From: "Henry B. Hotz"
Date:
Subject: 8.3 GSS Issues