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: 200312171751.hBHHpOg26838@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-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 | http://candle.pha.pa.us
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

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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