On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Haribabu Kommi wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Haribabu Kommi
>>> <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And one more thing, the vacuumdb password behavior is present in back branches
>>> also, is it worth back patching the vacuumdb fix to all supported
>>> branches and apply
>>> the jobs connection fix only to master and 9.5?
>>
>> Given the lack of complaints, I doubt it's worth the destabilization
>> risk. Let's just patch 9.5 and be done with it.
>
> Fine for me. --all is supported for ages.
OK, so attached is a patch aimed at master and 9.5. I reused the
suggestion of Haribabu to not rely completely on the maintenance
database after testing with a couple of database, some of them using
md5 and others trust. That's just more portable this way, and user
just needs to specify the password once to be done even with vacuumdb
--all.
Thoughts?
--
Michael
