Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
Should we document this somewhere? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
