From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: whats the deal with -u ? |
Date: | 2007-12-10 02:05:18 |
Message-ID: | 20071210020518.GB7240@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> >> I have never understood what's the point of having an option to force a
> >> password prompt. I wonder why don't we deprecate -W?
> >
> > It's not *completely* useless, because you only need one connection
> > attempt not two --- normally, psql gets rejected once before figuring
> > out that it must ask for a password.
>
> Hm, I wonder if this fixes one of the annoyances of kerberos support. If you
> have kerberos tickets psql uses the principal name from them rather than your
> unix username. If you don't actually use kerberos authentication for your
> postgres server then that means you have to specify the user on the command
> line all the time.
Huh, isn't this solved by just setting PGUSER? (In any case I doubt -W
has any effect on it.)
--
Alvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile ICBM: S 39º 49' 18.1", W 73º 13' 56.4"
"La vida es para el que se aventura"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-12-10 02:39:40 | Re: [HACKERS] BUG #3799: csvlog skips some logs |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-12-10 02:02:28 | Re: whats the deal with -u ? |