hubert depesz lubaczewski <dep...@depesz.com> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 02:27:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's not just the port, it's all the connection parameters ---
>> do_connect relies on the PGconn object to remember those, and in this
>> case there no longer is a PGconn object.
>>
>> We could have psql keep that information separately, but I'm not sure
>> it's really worth the trouble.
> well, I think it's definitely worth the trouble.
[ shrug.. ] So submit a patch. Personally I don't think the case comes
up often enough to be worth the trouble, and I'd much rather spend
development time on preventing the server from crashing in the first
place.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
