Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:30:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think we should either change PQconndefaults to *not* fail in this >> circumstance, or find a way to return an error message.
> Well, Steve Singer didn't like the idea of ignoring a service lookup > failure. What do others think? We can throw a warning, but there is no > way to know if the application allows the user to see it. Short of changing PQconndefaults's API, it seems like the only reasonable answer is to not fail *in the context of PQconndefaults*. We could still fail for bad service name in a real connection operation (where there is an opportunity to return an error message). While this surely isn't the nicest answer, it doesn't seem totally unreasonable to me. A bad service name indeed does not contribute anything to the set of defaults available. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers