| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Time to get rid of PQnoPasswordSupplied? |
| Date: | 2015-06-22 00:15:14 |
| Message-ID: | 55875392.3080504@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/19/15 10:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> On the other hand, you could argue that improving the string is going
> to break clients that do the right thing (even if klugily) in order
> to help clients that are doing the wrong thing (ie, failing without
> offering the opportunity to enter a password). Ideally no client app
> would ever show this message to users and so its readability would not
> matter.
Could we return a HINT? Or is that part of the same string?
I agree that it's probably not worth breaking people that are doing the
right thing. Perhaps this could be better documented, though I don't
know where we'd put it (I doubt users would go looking in the libpq api
docs to find it...)
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-06-22 00:28:56 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-06-21 21:32:33 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |