Re: [GENERAL] Connection options - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Igor Korot
Subject Re: [GENERAL] Connection options
Date
Msg-id CA+FnnTwLxPXdMiescnZ0KHwXMkd7i3H6zjTX_M45h8VGwnRrsQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] Connection options  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [GENERAL] Connection options  (Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>)
Re: [GENERAL] Connection options  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Re: [GENERAL] Connection options  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
Hi, David,

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:46 PM, David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Igor Korot <ikorot01@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> And could you clarify on the first part of this?
>> From the quote I poste it sounds like this is available only in
>> command-line
>> tools. And if someone will use it inside the program it will be ignored.
>
>
> The options you pass from the client via the "options" attribute are
> interpreted by *the server* as command-line options.  They are not options
> that control libpq itself.

Can you give an example or try to explain it?
What do you mean by "interpreted by the server as command-line options"?

Does this mean I can just ignore this parameter inside my C{++} program?
Or I can set some options and pass it to the server thru this parameter?

>
> I can kinda see the confusion here but I'm not sure how to write it more
> clearly without being excessively verbose.  I haven't seen this particular
> confusion before so I'd say the wording is reasonable and the mailing lists
> are doing their job of providing a forum for providing clarity.

Well for someone who is just started with PostgreSQL and C interface it is
confusing.

Thank you.

>
> David J.
>


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Connection options
Next
From: Adrian Klaver
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Connection options