On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 01:30:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@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 <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
