Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 2:39 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I think I just forgot about this thread. Shall we change it in HEAD
>> and see what happens? Maybe backpatch, but not till after 12.0 is out.
> Please do.
After looking closer at the code in pg_regress.c, I'm wondering a bit
about PGSERVICE. A setting for that might certainly bring in a value
for the database name, but I don't think we can just summarily unset it.
I don't plan to do anything about that right now, but conceivably it'd
bite people someday.
Another thing that looks a bit fishy here is that the set of variables
that pg_regress.c unsets is very much smaller than the set that libpq
reacts to --- we have added a ton of the latter without touching this
list (much less the three or four other places that duplicate it).
I wonder how problematic that is.
regards, tom lane
