How about using the psql prompt to convey this information? IIRC the
psql prompt can be configured to show the hostname, server, port and
other fields. Wouldn't this be enough? or am I missing something?
- Martin -
On 27 Jan 2010, at 13:01, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> 2010/1/27 Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>:
>> On 1/26/10 3:24 PM, David Christensen wrote:
>>> In the spirit of small, but hopefully useful interface improvement
>>> patches, enclosed for your review is a patch for providing psql
>>> with a
>>> \whoami command (maybe a better name is \conninfo or similar). Its
>>> purpose is to print information about the current connection, by
>>> in a human-readable format. There is also an optional format
>>> which currently accepts 'dsn' as an option to output the current
>>> connection information as a DSN.
> On a first note, it seems like the check for the parameter "dsn" isn't
> "complete". Without testing it, it looks like it would be possible to
> run "\whoami foobar", which should give an error.
>> oooh, I could really use this. +1 to put it in 9.1-first CF.
>> however, \conninfo is probably the better name. And what about a
> +1 on that name.
>> postgresql function version for non-psql connections?
> How could that function possibly know what the connection looks like
> from the client side? Think NAT, think proxies, think connection
> Magnus Hagander
> Me: http://www.hagander.net/
> Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2010-01-27 11:36:15|
|Subject: Re: Patch: psql \whoami option|
|Previous:||From: Fujii Masao||Date: 2010-01-27 10:46:36|
|Subject: Re: testing cvs HEAD - HS/SR - missing file|