On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
ISTM that the attached simpler patch can fix the problem.
But maybe I'm missing something...
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
