| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix for pg_upgrade user flag |
| Date: | 2011-05-07 17:50:48 |
| Message-ID: | 201105071750.p47HomX15230@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > One question I have is why we even bother to allow the database username
> > to be specified? Shouldn't we just hard-code that to 'postgres'?
>
> Only if you want to render pg_upgrade unusable by a significant fraction
> of people. "postgres" is not the hard wired name of the bootstrap
> superuser.
I was really wondering if I should be using that hard-coded name, rather
than allowing the user to supply it. They have to compile in a
different name, and I assume that name is accessible somewhere.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-05-07 18:01:14 | Re: New Canadian nonprofit for trademark, postgresql.org domain, etc. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-05-07 17:43:21 | Re: Fix for pg_upgrade user flag |