Is it typo of connection_name?

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 08:39:27AM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:

The "connection_name" parameter's explanation is not in Parameters
section.
Instead of it, "connection_object" parameter is in Parameters section. Its
explanation seems about "connection_name".
Is it typo about "connection_name" in Synopsis section, or
"connection_object" in Parameters section?

Good catch. If you look at the code (ecpg.trailer), connection_object
refers to the name of the parameter, while connection_name refers to
"AS connection_object" as a whole. So it seems to me that the
intention is to use connection_object in the synopsis of the docs.
Any thoughts from others?
--
Michael

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:49:14AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:

Good catch. If you look at the code (ecpg.trailer), connection_object
refers to the name of the parameter, while connection_name refers to
"AS connection_object" as a whole. So it seems to me that the
intention is to use connection_object in the synopsis of the docs.
Any thoughts from others?

Actually, looking around we use connection_name for other commands
like EXEC SQL or DISCONNECT, so renaming connection_object to
connection_name makes the documentation more consistent. And done.
--
Michael

Hi Michael

Actually, looking around we use connection_name for other commands
like EXEC SQL or DISCONNECT, so renaming connection_object to
connection_name makes the documentation more consistent. And done.

Thank you for commiting!

Regards.
Yusuke Egashira