Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't like the code in fe-connect.c one bit, it's way messed up. Yes. We've accepted several extremely questionable (not to mention poorly documented or completely undocumented) "features" in there recently. If I'd been paying more attention I would've voted against both the URL patch and the SERVICE patch, as I think they're both less than fully baked --- and I don't see word one about either in the libpq SGML documentation. Someone should probably review the history and either fix or remove the more dubious patches, before we get stuck having to be backwards-compatible with bad ideas. regards, tom lane
- Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket Alfred Perlstein
- Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket Nathan Myers
- Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix sock... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix ... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket Bruce Momjian