Re: Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1

From: Philip Yarra <philip(at)utiba(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "John Hansen" <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au>
Subject: Re: Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1
Date: 2005-11-17 22:25:04
Message-ID: 200511180925.04668.philip@utiba.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 05:29 am, Tom Lane wrote:
> It does seem a bit inconsistent that psql wouldn't connect to the
> specified database in order to do -l, if one is specified.
> Anyone want to look and see if it's easy to change?

It also breaks the ability to psql -l against older installations: e.g. this
is psql 8.1 trying to list databases on a 8.0.3 DB server:

$ psql -l -hdev2 -dtemplate1
psql: FATAL: database "postgres" does not exist

I'm told we never promise to make \l and \d work across client/server
versions, but if this is related, it'd be nice if the fix made this work
again too.

Regards, Philip.
--

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan

-----------------
Utiba Pty Ltd
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Utiba mail server and is
believed to be clean.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2005-11-17 22:30:32 Re: Improving count(*)
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2005-11-17 22:11:09 Re: Improving count(*)