Re: pg_upgrade and PGPORT

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> > On ons, 2011-05-11 at 18:36 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Robert Haas wrote:
> >> > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> > > Or you could just "unsetenv" instead of complaining.
> >> >
> >> > +1 for that.
> >>
> >> OK, the attached patch does this, but allows PGCLIENTENCODING to be
> >> passed in. ?The new output looks like:
> >>
> >> ? ? ? Performing Consistency Checks
> >> ? ? ? -----------------------------
> >> ? ? ? ignoring libpq environment variable PGPORT
> >
> > I haven't tried it, but I suppose option.c will now make use of PGPORT
> > and then later you get that message that it was ignored?
>
> Either way, it hardly seems necessary to emit a log message stating
> that you are unsetting an environment variable.

I think the whole idea of worrying about libpq environment variables is
useless. I looked at the list of libpq environment variables and I saw
a lot of useful ones, like PGUSER and PGPASSFILE, which we currently
throw an error.

I propose we only disable the use of PGHOST and even then that prevents
users from controlling tcp vs. unix domain connections.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +