| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: libpq host/hostaddr/conninfo inconsistencies |
| Date: | 2019-02-21 07:47:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20190221074743.GR15532@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 08:12:55PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The second para explains the cases in which you actually do need to
> provide "host", but I'm afraid that the first sentence will have
> misled people enough that they won't get the point.
>
> I don't think there's anything very wrong with the existing wording
> of this sentence.
I am not seeing anything bad with the first sentence either. Now if
people are willing to tweak its wording it may point out that
something is confusing in it. Would it be an improvement with a
formulation like that? Say cutting the apple in half like that:
"Numeric IP address that can be used in replacement of host."
> Robert's second and third changes seem fine, though.
Agreed.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tsunakawa, Takayuki | 2019-02-21 07:56:05 | RE: Timeout parameters |
| Previous Message | Nagaura, Ryohei | 2019-02-21 07:43:20 | RE: Timeout parameters |