From: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Mop-up around psql's \connect behavior |
Date: | 2020-10-21 23:04:49 |
Message-ID: | 5F90BE91.5030306@anastigmatix.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/21/20 18:59, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think the reason we've not had complaints about this is that the
> situation normally doesn't arise in interactive sessions (since we
> won't release the old connection voluntarily), while scripts are
> likely not designed to cope with connection losses anyway. These
> facts militate against spending a whole lot of effort on a fix,
> but still we ought to reduce the silliness factor. What I propose
> is to complain if we have no o_conn *and* we are asked to re-use
> parameters from it. Otherwise, it's fine.
I've been getting around it just by saying
\c "connstring" . . .
which works. It gives me a tiny thrill every time I do it, like I'm
getting away with something. Which is why I haven't been complaining.
I suppose I wouldn't complain if it were fixed, either.
Regards,
-Chap
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Smith | 2020-10-21 23:26:58 | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |
Previous Message | Anastasia Lubennikova | 2020-10-21 22:59:07 | Re: Allow some recovery parameters to be changed with reload |