On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:52:50PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 5:09 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> > On tis, 2011-09-06 at 17:12 +0200, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 02:27:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> > It's not just the port, it's all the connection parameters ---
> >> > do_connect relies on the PGconn object to remember those, and in this
> >> > case there no longer is a PGconn object.
> >> >
> >> > We could have psql keep that information separately, but I'm not sure
> >> > it's really worth the trouble.
> >>
> >> well, I think it's definitely worth the trouble. If I had datbaase
> >> standing at 5432, it would connect to it, and then I could mistakenly
> >> ran commands to wrong database.
> >> this is clearly not a good thing.
> >
> > Perhaps just prevent \connect without argument if the information is no
> > longer available.
>
> I think it'd be worth actually having psql maintain the information
> separately from the PGconn... but if nobody feels motivated to go do
> that, doing at least this much would remove the foot-gun. So +1 for
> that.
OK, I have applied the attached, applied patch to do as you suggest.
Here are examples:
!> SELECT * FROM mytable WHERE to_ascii(convert_to(mytext, 'latin1'), 'latin1')
-> = to_ascii(convert_to('nicetry', 'latin1'), 'latin1');
You are currently not connected to a database.
!> \c
All connection parameters must be supplied because no database connection exists
!> \q
$ psql -p 5433 test
psql (9.3devel)
Type "help" for help.
test=> \c
You are now connected to database "test" as user "postgres".
test=> \q
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
