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 object? cheers andrew ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq