On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Also, actually, I see no reason for the conninfo to be shown differently > regardless of a connection being already established. If we show the > conninfo that the server is trying to use, it might be easier to > diagnose a problem. In short, I think this is all misconceived (mea > culpa) and that we should have two conninfo members in that struct as > initially proposed, one obfuscated and the other not.
Seriously! The whole problem here is being created by trying to use the same field for two different purposes: 1. The string that should actually be used for connections. 2. The sanitized version that should be exposed to the user. If you try to use the same variable to store two different values, both bugs and confusion may result. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
