Re: dblink un-named connection doesn't get re-used

Decibel! wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2007, at 11:17 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
>>
>> Seriously though, I can change it for 8.3, but is it really worth  
>> back-patching?
> 
> I think it'd be worth changing for 8.3. While C forces you to worry  
> about memory, SQL does not, so I bet this is a surprise to most folks.

I don't think anyone has ever noticed -- certainly not enough to 
complain in the past 5 years. This behavior has been the same since day 
one. I don't mind changing it, but I don't see it as a big deal.

> 
> It might be worth backpatching the docs, because they're wrong.

How so? Please provide better wording if you don't like what it 
currently says. Simply saying it is wrong is unhelpful.

Joe