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

From Itagaki Takahiro
Subject Re: dblink versus long connection strings
Date
Msg-id AANLkTimQMy5wFwEyUb=a1fYd5DTbP94-wHQjaO2QUZOU@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: dblink versus long connection strings  (queej <dqj@authentrics.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 01:01, queej <dqj@authentrics.com> wrote:
> I have views that use the dblink(connStr text, sql text) call.  They cannot
> use a two-step process.  So postgres 9.0 has broken all of those views.  Is
> there a straightforward solution to this?

Could you explain your views?  I cannot get any warnings from
dblink(connStr text, sql text) with long connStr.

Also, I wonder two things:
* dblink(connStr text, sql text) never raises warning logs even without the recent fix, because they don't register
connectionnames. 
* Connection names could be truncated, but connection strings are never truncated. I'm not sure why connection strings
arelogged in your log. 

--
Itagaki Takahiro


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Daniel Loureiro
Date:
Subject: DELETE with LIMIT (or my first hack)
Next
From: Jaime Casanova
Date:
Subject: Re: DELETE with LIMIT (or my first hack)