On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:36 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> 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 expect.
Sure, I don't have a problem with that. I guess part of the point of beta releases is to correct things that don't turn out to be as smart as we thought they were, and this seems to be an example of that. > I understand the slippery-slope argument that you might also want to have > different usernames etc. for different hosts, but it's confusing that > specifying a hostaddr changes the way the host-argument is interpreted. In > the worst case, if we let that stand, someone might actually start to depend > on that behavior. The other options don't have that issue. And hostaddr is > much more closely tied to specifying the target to connect to, like host and > port are. Yeah, I'm not objecting to your changes, just telling you what my chain of reasoning was. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
