From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Improving psql's \password command |
Date: | 2021-11-11 16:11:51 |
Message-ID: | 1553329.1636647111@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> writes:
> On 10/29/21, 5:07 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I was afraid somebody would say that. I have looked at it, but AFAICS
>> we'd have to duplicate all of sprompt.c and nearly all of pg_get_line.c
>> in order to tie it into psql's SIGINT infrastructure, since we wouldn't
>> dare enable the signal handler except during the innermost fgets() call,
>> and if we did get a signal we'd still need to clean up the terminal echo
>> state, so we couldn't just longjmp out of simple_prompt(). The
>> cost/benefit ratio of that doesn't look very good.
> Hm. Is it really necessary to duplicate all of sprompt.c and
> pg_get_line.c? Would it be possible to teach the existing functions
> how to optionally enable SIGINT handling instead? I wouldn't mind
> trying my hand at this if it seems like a reasonable approach.
It seems to me it'd overcomplicate simple_prompt's API for one use-case
... but if you want to try it, step right up. (I suppose some of that
objection could be overcome by making simple_prompt into a wrapper
around another function not_so_simple_prompt.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2021-11-11 16:16:55 | Re: Should AT TIME ZONE be volatile? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-11-11 16:06:24 | Strange error in new 003_cic_2pc.pl test |