From: | Alastair Turner <bell(at)ctrlf5(dot)co(dot)za> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: First patch proposal |
Date: | 2010-10-14 14:39:02 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimpwgvHazKL523j0WgiximUthsjPndUwn0hUsUX@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alastair Turner <bell(at)ctrlf5(dot)co(dot)za> writes:
>> I am proposing altering psql to raise certain errors and exit before
>> prompting for a password. These errors would have to be on items which
>> didn't leak any information, my current list is:
>> - Does the input file (-f) exist and is it readable
>> - Do paths to the output files ( -o and -l) exist and are they writable
>> - Is the host/socket listening (-h)
>
> You could probably do the first two (not sure how badly you'd have to
> contort the logic in psql, but in principle you could do it). I'm not
> sure I like/believe the last one though. The prompt for password is
> already driven by the server demanding one, isn't it? So you won't get
> one if -h is bad. If you're thinking of altering the behavior when -W
> is specified, I'd be agin it, because I think the point of that switch
> is to ensure predictable behavior, ie that the program will ask for a
> password no matter how the server responds or doesn't.
Thanks for the feedback, I'll keep it to the first two then.
Regards
Bell
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-10-14 14:47:41 | Re: SQL command to edit postgresql.conf, with comments |
Previous Message | Hitoshi Harada | 2010-10-14 14:37:27 | UNION DISTINCT in doc |