From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Christoph Berg <cb(at)df7cb(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, bruce(at)momjian(dot)us |
Subject: | Re: libpq 9.4 requires /etc/passwd? |
Date: | 2015-01-10 18:59:29 |
Message-ID: | 20150110185929.GA2702533@tornado.leadboat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 06:57:02PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Commit a4c8f14364c27508233f8a31ac4b10a4c90235a9 turned
> failure of pg_fe_getauthname() into a hard connection failure, whereas
> previously it was harmless as long as the caller provided a username.
>
> I wonder if we shouldn't just revert that commit in toto. Yeah,
> identifying an out-of-memory error might be useful, but this cure
> seems a lot worse than the disease. What's more, this coding reports
> *any* pg_fe_getauthname failure as "out of memory", which is much worse
> than useless.
+1 for reverting it as the next step
> Alternatively, maybe don't try to resolve username this way until
> we've found that the caller isn't providing any username.
and for subsequently pursuing this.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-01-10 19:02:54 | Re: libpq 9.4 requires /etc/passwd? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-01-10 18:42:06 | Re: libpq 9.4 requires /etc/passwd? |