Re: Mop-up around psql's \connect behavior

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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