Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> I didn't know such a thing even existed. What causes it to happen? I
>> agree it should be forbidden.
> It was the only way to switch users before we had SET SESSION
> AUTHORIZATION and SET ROLE and such. But the pg_restore man page says
> that -R/--no-reconnect is obsolete, so I'm not sure what the current
> behavior really is.
Yeah, I think I was remembering ancient history. AFAICT we now never
do a reconnect with anything but the originally specified username.
I thought for a bit about stripping out the apparent flexibility to
use other names, and making these low-level functions just consult
ropt->username for themselves. But we might regret that someday.
What's probably better is to have them notice whether the argument
is ropt->username, and only attempt to cache the password if so.
I'm almost done reviewing the patch, and will send along an updated
version shortly.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
