On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 1:54 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> > On 2021-Jan-20, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> I figured it was something like that. I don't know whether the right
> >> thing is to use something like PQdb() to get the correct database
> >> name, or whether we should go with Tom's suggestion and omit that
> >> detail altogether, but I think showing the empty string when the user
> >> relied on the default is too confusing.
>
> > Well, the patch seems small enough, and I don't think it'll be in any
> > way helpful to omit that detail.
>
> I'm +1 for applying and back-patching that. I still think we might
> want to just drop the phrase altogether in HEAD, but we wouldn't do
> that in the back branches, and the message is surely misleading as-is.
Sure, that makes sense.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
