From: | David Christensen <david(at)endpoint(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Patch: psql \whoami option |
Date: | 2010-01-27 14:01:04 |
Message-ID: | 56DCD6FB-6173-4DBB-93B6-AE10DDC90D97@endpoint.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan 27, 2010, at 4:01 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> 2010/1/27 Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>:
>> On 1/26/10 3:24 PM, David Christensen wrote:
>>> -hackers,
>>>
>>> In the spirit of small, but hopefully useful interface improvement
>>> patches, enclosed for your review is a patch for providing psql
>>> with a
>>> \whoami command (maybe a better name is \conninfo or similar). Its
>>> purpose is to print information about the current connection, by
>>> default
>>> in a human-readable format. There is also an optional format
>>> parameter
>>> which currently accepts 'dsn' as an option to output the current
>>> connection information as a DSN.
>
> On a first note, it seems like the check for the parameter "dsn" isn't
> "complete". Without testing it, it looks like it would be possible to
> run "\whoami foobar", which should give an error.
Yeah, I debated that; right now, it just ignores any output it doesn't
know about and spits out the human-readable format.
>> oooh, I could really use this. +1 to put it in 9.1-first CF.
>>
>> however, \conninfo is probably the better name. And what about a
>
> +1 on that name.
That makes at least three, including me. :-)
>> postgresql function version for non-psql connections?
>
> How could that function possibly know what the connection looks like
> from the client side? Think NAT, think proxies, think connection
> poolers.
Yes, this doesn't seem to be a feasible thing to detect in all (many?)
cases.
Regards,
David
--
David Christensen
End Point Corporation
david(at)endpoint(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-01-27 14:05:52 | Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2010-01-27 13:44:02 | Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text |