Re: Connection string parameter 'replication' in documentation

Ouch!

At Tue, 6 Oct 2015 17:22:17 -0400, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in <CA+TgmobZVq6E+LwuM=Sva358SQ-FrD-qEim8wPZka9sHWna6mw(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> > /*
> > * We use the expand_dbname parameter to process the connection string (or
> > - * URI), and pass some extra options. The deliberately undocumented
> > - * parameter "replication=true" makes it a replication connection. The
> > - * database name is ignored by the server in replication mode, but specify
> > - * "replication" for .pgpass lookup.
> > + * URI), and pass some extra options. The paramter "replication"
> > + * deliberately documented out of the section for the ordiary client
> > + * protocol, having "true" makes it a physical replication connection. The
> > + * database name is ignored by the server in physical replication mode,
> > + * but specify "replication" for .pgpass lookup.
> > */
>
> I don't think this is an improvement, even ignoring the fact that
> you've spelled a couple of words incorrectly. The original text seems
> clear enough, and the new text isn't really fully accurate either: the
> discussion of when the database name is ignored really shouldn't be
> linked to whether this is logical or physical replication.

Thank you for your kindly replying this. I agree to the comment
above. It is my mistake that "in physical.." looks to qualify
"ignored" but no future in polishing it.

regards,

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center