Thread: Is it typo of connection_name?

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/ecpg-sql-connect.html
Description:

The "connection_name" parameter's explanation is not in Parameters
section.
Instead of it, "connection_object" parameter is in Parameters section. Its
explanation seems about "connection_name".
Is it typo about "connection_name" in Synopsis section, or
"connection_object" in Parameters section?

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 08:39:27AM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> The "connection_name" parameter's explanation is not in Parameters
> section.
> Instead of it, "connection_object" parameter is in Parameters section. Its
> explanation seems about "connection_name".
> Is it typo about "connection_name" in Synopsis section, or
> "connection_object" in Parameters section?

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?
--
Michael

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

Hi Michael

> 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.

Thank you for commiting!

Regards.
Yusuke Egashira