Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] pg_service.conf ignores dbname parameter

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Michael Fuhr <mfuhr(at)fuhr(dot)org>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_service.conf ignores dbname parameter
Date: 2003-12-17 17:51:24
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-bugspgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Fuhr <mfuhr(at)fuhr(dot)org> writes:
> > When a client connects to the database server using a service name,
> > the dbname parameter in pg_service.conf is ignored.  In the absence
> > of an explicitly-named database in the connection string, the service
> > name is used as the database name regardless of that service's
> > dbname setting.
> > [snip]
> > I haven't yet examined the rest of the code closely enough to come
> > up with the correct patch, but it seems that the "set the database
> > name to the name of the service" code should be deferred until
> > after all of the service's parameters have been read.
> Hm.  I'm of the opinion that the real problem here is the code's
> assumption that it is reasonable to force dbname = servicename when
> the service file doesn't say any such thing.  For all other parameters,
> omitting the parameter from pg_service.conf causes the standard default
> to be adopted.  Why should dbname work differently?  It saves only a
> minimal amount of typing to do it this way, and it might prevent some
> useful setups (namely, a service that specifies connection params but
> allows the usual default of dbname = username to apply).
> Since pg_service was completely undocumented before 7.4, I think it is
> safe to say that its usage in the field is nil except for the original
> author, and therefore "backwards compatibility" is not really a relevant
> argument just yet.  We ought to concentrate on "principle of least
> astonishment" instead.
> Accordingly, I'd rather just delete the offending code instead of move
> it.  (BTW, I notice Bruce has fooled with this code before, so it's
> already in the "known source of problems" category.)

Agreed.  Just make them supply the dbname in the service file.  I can
make the changes and update the documentation in pg_service.conf:

# included in this file.  If no database name is specified, it is assumed 
# to match the service name.  Lines beginning with '#' are comments.

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-12-17 18:07:35
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Double Backslash example patch
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-12-17 17:39:02
Subject: Re: pg_service.conf ignores dbname parameter

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-12-17 18:22:11
Subject: Re: PG7.4 / psqlodbc / log_duration=true & client_min_messages=log / Can't connect
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-12-17 17:42:54
Subject: Re: BUG #1009: ERROR: could not open segment 1 of relation...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group