Re: whats the deal with -u ?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Subject: Re: whats the deal with -u ?
Date: 2007-12-10 00:46:29
Message-ID: 23208.1197247589@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> I have never understood what's the point of having an option to force a
> password prompt. I wonder why don't we deprecate -W?

It's not *completely* useless, because you only need one connection
attempt not two --- normally, psql gets rejected once before figuring
out that it must ask for a password. You can imagine scenarios with
slow internet connections, or a badly overloaded database, where it
might be worth the keystrokes to type -W.

OTOH, you can also avoid the two-attempts syndrome with a ~/.pgpass
file.

On balance I'm not for deprecating it, but pointing out that it's
normally useless doesn't seem out of line...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2007-12-10 01:12:21 Re: BUG #3811: Getting multiple values from a sequence generator
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2007-12-10 00:44:08 Re: whats the deal with -u ?