Thread: Re: [BUGS] BUG #13741: vacuumdb does not accept valid password

Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Haribabu Kommi
> <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> That's neater. See for example the attached.

>> Yes, it is much cleaner than the previous version.
>> I reviewed and tested the same. It is working for all scenarios.

> This patch has fallen in the void and it simplifies greatly vacuumdb.c
> and its password-related routines. I have added it to the next CF to
> not forget about it:

Sorry for having lost track of this.  I think if we're going to do this,
we should do it now not later, because it essentially reverts the
connectDatabase() API change made in 83dec5a71 in favor of a different API
change with the same purpose.  Now, that doesn't matter if no third-party
code is using connectDatabase(), but I have a suspicion that there
probably is some.  Any such users will not thank us for whacking
connectDatabase's API around in 9.5 and then whacking it around
differently in 9.6.

In short, I think we should apply this now and back-patch into 9.5,
like the prior patch, even though we're post-RC1.  The reduction in
cross-version API churn is worth it.

If no objections, I'll go do that shortly.
        regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:

> Sorry for having lost track of this.  I think if we're going to do this,
> we should do it now not later, because it essentially reverts the
> connectDatabase() API change made in 83dec5a71 in favor of a different API
> change with the same purpose.  Now, that doesn't matter if no third-party
> code is using connectDatabase(), but I have a suspicion that there
> probably is some.  Any such users will not thank us for whacking
> connectDatabase's API around in 9.5 and then whacking it around
> differently in 9.6.
> 
> In short, I think we should apply this now and back-patch into 9.5,
> like the prior patch, even though we're post-RC1.  The reduction in
> cross-version API churn is worth it.
> 
> If no objections, I'll go do that shortly.

No objection here.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 1:55 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Sorry for having lost track of this.  I think if we're going to do this,
>> we should do it now not later, because it essentially reverts the
>> connectDatabase() API change made in 83dec5a71 in favor of a different API
>> change with the same purpose.  Now, that doesn't matter if no third-party
>> code is using connectDatabase(), but I have a suspicion that there
>> probably is some.  Any such users will not thank us for whacking
>> connectDatabase's API around in 9.5 and then whacking it around
>> differently in 9.6.
>>
>> In short, I think we should apply this now and back-patch into 9.5,
>> like the prior patch, even though we're post-RC1.  The reduction in
>> cross-version API churn is worth it.
>>
>> If no objections, I'll go do that shortly.
>
> No objection here.

Thanks for taking care of that!
-- 
Michael