On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 01:30:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > 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).
Yes, that is _a_ plan. > 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. I think the concern is that the services file could easily change the defaults that are used for connecting, though you could argue that the real defaults for a bad service entry are properly returned. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
