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
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 ? |