From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: libpq should append auth failures, not overwrite |
Date: | 2018-08-15 15:56:20 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ_uB2Zjoah98eKriH5FYQteEC-CpihhdEoFVo1whFYkA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Well, I'm actually not proposing to print "maximum detail", and Fabien
> is complaining about that, which makes me think maybe I've hit a happy
> medium ;-). In particular, the proposed patches won't change behavior
> for cases where you just give one hostname or hostaddr, and I'd argue
> that that is the only case where we really have enough track record to
> be sure that people are happy with the amount of detail provided.
> As soon as you have multiple target hosts, though, the current code's
> behavior is inadequate IMO.
I'm not entirely convinced; see the example I posted before.
> Indisputably it's inconsistent, because
> some code paths will concatenate error messages and some won't, without
> any rhyme or reason that I can detect. I think the only reason we've
> not had more complaints is that hardly anyone is using this feature yet.
I agree that inconsistency is bad as a rule. :-)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-08-15 15:56:43 | Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-08-15 15:53:27 | Re: libpq should append auth failures, not overwrite |