Re: POLA violation with \c service=

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: POLA violation with \c service=
Date: 2015-03-02 21:52:37
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZu76G2bR=0bk-nY7uzrmkJHtebQYh07-xwP1a=Pkpg+w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
>
>> My thinking behind this was that the patch is a bug fix and intended
>> to be back-patched, so I wanted to mess with as little infrastructure
>> as possible. A new version of libpq seems like a very big ask for
>> such a case. You'll recall that the original problem was that
>>
>> \c service=foo
>>
>> only worked accidentally for some pretty narrow use cases and broke
>> without much of a clue for the rest. It turned out that the general
>> problem was that options given to psql on the command line were not
>> even remotely equivalent to \c, even though they were documented to
>> be.
>
> So, in view of these arguments and those put forward by Pavel
> downthread, I think the attached is an acceptable patch for the master
> branch. It doesn't apply to back branches though; 9.4 and 9.3 have a
> conflict in tab-complete.c, 9.2 has additional conflicts in command.c,
> and 9.1 and 9.0 are problematic all over because they don't have
> src/common. Could you please submit patches adapted for each group of
> branches?

I'm fine with this change in master, but I vote against back-patching
it. This is not such an important problem that we need to take the
risk of destabilizing existing installations.

(Also, src/common is only 2 years old, so how would we back-patch
anything touching that past 9.3 anyway?)

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-03-02 21:56:47 Re: How about to have relnamespace and relrole?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2015-03-02 21:47:01 Re: Proposal: knowing detail of config files via SQL