On 07/10/2017 01:47 PM, Arthur Zakirov wrote:
Hello,
2017-07-10 12:30 GMT+03:00 Heikki Linnakangas :
I just remembered that this was still pending. I made the documentation
changes, and committed this patch now.
We're uncomfortably close to wrapping the next beta, later
Hello,
2017-07-10 12:30 GMT+03:00 Heikki Linnakangas :
>
>
> I just remembered that this was still pending. I made the documentation
> changes, and committed this patch now.
>
> We're uncomfortably close to wrapping the next beta, later today, but I
> think it's better to get
On 06/09/2017 04:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:36 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Right. I think it's a usability fail as it is; it certainly fooled me. We
could make the error messages and documentation more clear. But even better
to allow multiple host
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 06/09/2017 05:47 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
>> Your commit to fix this part, 76b11e8a43eca4612d, is giving me compiler
>> warnings:
>>
>> fe-connect.c: In function 'connectDBStart':
>> fe-connect.c:1625: warning: 'ret'
On 06/09/2017 05:47 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
Your commit to fix this part, 76b11e8a43eca4612d, is giving me compiler
warnings:
fe-connect.c: In function 'connectDBStart':
fe-connect.c:1625: warning: 'ret' may be used uninitialized in this function
gcc version 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-18)
Jeff Janes writes:
> Your commit to fix this part, 76b11e8a43eca4612d, is giving me compiler
> warnings:
> fe-connect.c: In function 'connectDBStart':
> fe-connect.c:1625: warning: 'ret' may be used uninitialized in this function
Me too ...
> gcc version 4.4.7 20120313
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> While testing libpq and GSS the other day, I was surprised by the behavior
> of the host and hostaddr libpq options, if you specify a list of hostnames.
>
> I did this this, and it took me quite a while to figure out
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:36 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Right. I think it's a usability fail as it is; it certainly fooled me. We
> could make the error messages and documentation more clear. But even better
> to allow multiple host addresses, so that it works as you'd
On 06/08/2017 06:18 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
It doesn't seem like a problem to me if somebody else wants to extend
it to hostaddr, though. Whether that change belongs in v10 or v11
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Hmm, there is one problem with our current use of comma as a separator:
you
> cannot use a Unix-domain socket directory that has a comma in the name,
> because it's interpreted as multiple hostnames. E.g. this doesn't
On 06/08/2017 06:39 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
These are already failing so I'd agree that explicit rejection isn't
necessary - the question seems restricted to usability. Though I suppose
we need to consider whether there is any problem with the current setup if
indeed our intended separator
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Whatever you put in the hostaddr field - or any field other than host
> and port - is one entry. There is no notion of a list of entries in
> any other field, and no attempt to split any other field on a comma or
> any
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> It doesn't seem like a problem to me if somebody else wants to extend
>> it to hostaddr, though. Whether that change belongs in v10 or v11 is
>> debatable. I would object to
Robert Haas writes:
> It doesn't seem like a problem to me if somebody else wants to extend
> it to hostaddr, though. Whether that change belongs in v10 or v11 is
> debatable. I would object to adding this as an open item with me as
> the owner because doesn't seem to me
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> So, this is all quite confusing. I think we should support a list of
> hostaddrs, to go with the list of hostnames. It seems like a strange
> omission. Looking at the archives, it was mentioned a few times when this
>
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> So, this is all quite confusing. I think we should support a list of
> hostaddrs, to go with the list of hostnames. It seems like a strange
> omission.
+1, if it's not too large a patch. It could be argued that this is
a new feature and should
16 matches
Mail list logo