| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Steve Singer <ssinger(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade segfaults when given an invalid PGSERVICE value |
| Date: | 2013-03-20 17:30:20 |
| Message-ID: | 6662.1363800620@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:30:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think we should either change PQconndefaults to *not* fail in this
>> circumstance, or find a way to return an error message.
> Well, Steve Singer didn't like the idea of ignoring a service lookup
> failure. What do others think? We can throw a warning, but there is no
> way to know if the application allows the user to see it.
Short of changing PQconndefaults's API, it seems like the only
reasonable answer is to not fail *in the context of PQconndefaults*.
We could still fail for bad service name in a real connection operation
(where there is an opportunity to return an error message).
While this surely isn't the nicest answer, it doesn't seem totally
unreasonable to me. A bad service name indeed does not contribute
anything to the set of defaults available.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-03-20 18:02:32 | Let's invent a function to report lock-wait-blocking PIDs |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-03-20 17:13:30 | Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables) |