Ouch! At Tue, 6 Oct 2015 17:22:17 -0400, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote in <CA+TgmobZVq6E+LwuM=sva358sq-frd-qeim8wpzka9shwna...@mail.gmail.com> > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > /* > > * We use the expand_dbname parameter to process the connection > > string (or > > - * URI), and pass some extra options. The deliberately undocumented > > - * parameter "replication=true" makes it a replication connection. > > The > > - * database name is ignored by the server in replication mode, but > > specify > > - * "replication" for .pgpass lookup. > > + * URI), and pass some extra options. The paramter "replication" > > + * deliberately documented out of the section for the ordiary client > > + * protocol, having "true" makes it a physical replication > > connection. The > > + * database name is ignored by the server in physical replication > > mode, > > + * but specify "replication" for .pgpass lookup. > > */ > > I don't think this is an improvement, even ignoring the fact that > you've spelled a couple of words incorrectly. The original text seems > clear enough, and the new text isn't really fully accurate either: the > discussion of when the database name is ignored really shouldn't be > linked to whether this is logical or physical replication.
Thank you for your kindly replying this. I agree to the comment above. It is my mistake that "in physical.." looks to qualify "ignored" but no future in polishing it. regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
