|From:||Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: libpq should append auth failures, not overwrite|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
>> ISTM that both the hostname and ip should be shown to avoid confusion
>> about hosts with multiple ips, esp. as ips are given in any order by the
>> Also for homogeneity, I'd suggest to always add the server line. If the
>> server introduction is inserted in all cases, including when only one host
>> is used, hints become partially redundant:
>> server "local.coelho.net" port 5434:
>> could not connect to server: Connection refused
>> Is the server running on host "local.coelho.net" (127.0.0.1) and accepting
>> TCP/IP connections on port 5434?
>> This would allow to simplify more hints, which you seem to have done on
>> "open read-write session" and "SHOW transaction_read_only" but not others.
> As I explained in my comments, the reason I did not do these things
> is that I didn't want to change the output for cases in which just a
> single host name is given. I still don't.
Ok, I get your argument when there is just one target server (cluster),
which is probably at least 99.9% of the use case in practice.
However, ISTM multiple ip & multiple hostname look pretty close.
I guess that the number of people that use these features is small, but
for these when things go wrong better messages are useful... so I would
see no harm to trigger the server introductory line when there are
multiples servers, whatever the reason why there are multiples servers.
|Next Message||Fabien COELHO||2018-08-13 15:37:55||Re: libpq should not look up all host addresses at once|
|Previous Message||Alexander Korotkov||2018-08-13 15:35:17||WIP: "More fair" LWLocks|