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
