| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Mark Wood <mhwood(at)ameritech(dot)net>, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #14912: Undocumented: 'psql -l' assumes database 'postgresql' not $USER |
| Date: | 2018-02-02 22:05:36 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwb2QgiMA=aWXpHkDmQSPWnO=mDJArX-UozddmQf8EoE+w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 11/16/17 16:27, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > List all available databases, then exit. Other non-connection
> > - options are ignored. This is similar to the meta-command
> > + options are ignored. If an explicit database name is not
> > + found the <literal>postgres</literal> database, not the user's,
> > + will be targeted for connection. This is similar to the
> meta-command
> > <command>\list</command>.
>
> What does "an explicit database name is not found" mean?
A name was not supplied to the psql command either as the first non-option
argument, via the --dbname command line option, in the connection URI
(possibly indirectly via a pg_service.conf entry), or via the PGDATABASE
environment variable.
How does one
> find an explicit database name?
>
Given the answer above does this question still apply?
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2018-02-02 23:33:13 | Re: BUG #15045: Partitioning not working as intended |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-02-02 21:49:44 | Re: BUG #14912: Undocumented: 'psql -l' assumes database 'postgresql' not $USER |