Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:30:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think we should either change PQconndefaults to *not* fail in this
>> circumstance, or find a way to return an error message.
> Well, Steve Singer didn't like the idea of ignoring a service lookup
> failure. What do others think? We can throw a warning, but there is no
> way to know if the application allows the user to see it.
Short of changing PQconndefaults's API, it seems like the only
reasonable answer is to not fail *in the context of PQconndefaults*.
We could still fail for bad service name in a real connection operation
(where there is an opportunity to return an error message).
While this surely isn't the nicest answer, it doesn't seem totally
unreasonable to me. A bad service name indeed does not contribute
anything to the set of defaults available.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
