From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: psql \l to accept patterns |
Date: | 2013-01-11 16:35:33 |
Message-ID: | 20130111163533.GC16126@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> > Good point. What about the other suggestion about only displaying
> > databases by default that you can connect to?
>
> I would tend not to adopt that suggestion, on the grounds that it has
> no obvious parallel with anything else psql hides by default.
> However, I don't feel quite as strongly about that case.
In the past, haven't we done this through the catalog tables themselves
rather than hacking up psql..? pg_stats being a prime example? With
the row-level-security discussion, there was talk about if we might be
able to apply that capability to catalogs also. That strikes me as a
better option/approach than doing any of this in one particular
application (psql in this case) which connects to PG.
tbh, I'm not entirely against excluding databases that don't allow *any*
connections (key'd off datallowconns) to clear out template0/template1
from the default list, but I see that as different from "things I don't
have permissions to".
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-01-11 16:38:29 | Version 4.10 of buildfarm client released. |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-01-11 16:34:01 | Re: ToDo: log plans of cancelled queries |