Re: Suggestions for improving \conninfo output in v18

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Suggestions for improving \conninfo output in v18
Date: 2025-06-13 04:32:52
Message-ID: 1314564.1749789172@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 8:05 PM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
> wrote:
>> Therefore I see this as fixing an oversight in commit bba2fbc6238, so I'd
>> like to commit the 0001 patch as well in v18. Thought?

> You should get the concurrence of the RMT.
> ...
> Also, I was under the impression that updating relevant documentation for
> a feature wasn't even subject to RMT review;

FWIW, I agree with David's view of both of these points. RMT
review of 0001 should be a formality here, but nonetheless
we should adhere to process.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sungwoo Chang 2025-06-13 04:53:00 Fwd: dsm_registry: Add detach and destroy features
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2025-06-13 03:57:45 Re: Suggestions for improving \conninfo output in v18