| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neha Khatri <nehakhatri5(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Hubert Lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com>, "pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why psql connection assumes default database name as the username |
| Date: | 2017-03-24 01:58:47 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZLb7DSRDvQLk7KPkt-O4Z1=pvZrx56Zwa+E+D=r0q74Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-novice |
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Neha Khatri <nehakhatri5(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I get that. So, in current database systems, how much does this assumption
> weigh? Or it would be more useful update the message from
>
> psql: FATAL: database "neha" does not exist //Ofcourse, it won't in
> most cases.
>
> to
>
> psql: FATAL: database "neha" does not exist. Try connecting to an existing
> database or template database.
>
>
Introducing "template database" is probably going to cause more confusion,
not less.
<database "neha" does not exist, please provide the name of one that does
exist> - the last part seems somewhat self-evident ...
What you really want to say is:
FATAL: blah-blah-blah
HINT: While the database name argument is technically optional you probably
want to supply one seeing as how a database with your name, i.e., the
default, doesn't exist.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2017-03-24 06:25:25 | Re: Why psql connection assumes default database name as the username |
| Previous Message | Neha Khatri | 2017-03-24 01:10:36 | Re: Why psql connection assumes default database name as the username |