> On 22 Mar 2018, at 22:38, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > This stuff seems reasonably non-controversial, so pushed.
Thanks! > BTW, really the point of what I'd mentioned before was to avoid having > dblink_res_error constructing a message out of fragments, which it's > still doing. I'd thought perhaps we would shove the responsibility for > mentioning the connection name out to the callers to get rid of that. > But handling the possibility of an unnamed connection seems like it'd > complicate the callers considerably. And as long as we don't actually > have translation support in that module, it'd just be make-work, so > I didn't do it. Right, that would be a lof of complexity for no real gain until dblink is translated. cheers ./daniel
