Re: whats the deal with -u ?

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, "Robert Treat" <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Subject: Re: whats the deal with -u ?
Date: 2007-12-10 02:02:28
Message-ID: 87odczmhmz.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
>> I have never understood what's the point of having an option to force a
>> password prompt. I wonder why don't we deprecate -W?
>
> It's not *completely* useless, because you only need one connection
> attempt not two --- normally, psql gets rejected once before figuring
> out that it must ask for a password.

Hm, I wonder if this fixes one of the annoyances of kerberos support. If you
have kerberos tickets psql uses the principal name from them rather than your
unix username. If you don't actually use kerberos authentication for your
postgres server then that means you have to specify the user on the command
line all the time.

Don't actually have a psql built with kerberos authentication handy but I'll
try to remember to test this the next time I do.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training!

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-12-10 02:05:18 Re: whats the deal with -u ?
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2007-12-10 01:49:43 Re: pgsql: The E.