Tom Lane wrote:
> "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Here's the patch for what I think is the consensus position. If there's
>> no
>> objection I will apply this and document it.
> Please do something for the comment for the connectOptions1 call.
> As you've coded it, that is doing two completely different things
> and the comment is almost completely unhelpful at explaining this
> complexity.  Oh, and casting away const gets no points for style.

ouch. :-)

Ok, I accept the reproof. In fact I got up this morning, had my coffee,
and thought "That's a silly way to do it, I could make it much neater by
moving the dbName processing up," and lo and behold when I read your email
you had done it :-) It shall be done as you wish.

BTW, what is the approved way to handle warnings about const? Copy the



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to