Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 2014-05-17 12:23:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think the key issue comes down to this comment in RenameDatabase: >> >> * XXX Client applications probably store the current database somewhere, >> * so renaming it could cause confusion. On the other hand, there may not >> * be an actual problem besides a little confusion, so think about this >> * and decide. >> >> If we're willing to decide that we will never support renaming an active >> database, then the approach you're proposing makes sense. And it seems >> to me that this issue of potentially confusing client apps is much the >> strongest argument for making such a decision. But is it strong enough? >> >> Given that there haven't been complaints in the past ten years about how >> you can't rename an active database, I'm OK personally with locking this >> down forever. But I wonder if anyone wants to argue the contrary.
> I don't see much need to allow it. But even if we're interested in > allowing rename properly there'll definitely be the need to update the > database name used in log messages. I think the client-side issues are far worse. For example, if we allow renaming active databases then the subprocesses in a parallel pg_dump or pg_restore could connect to the wrong database, ie not the one the leader process is connected to. The very best-case outcome of that is confusing error messages, and worst-case could be pretty nasty (perhaps even security issues?). We could no doubt teach pg_dump and pg_restore to cross-check database OIDs after reconnecting, but lots of other applications could have comparable problems. >> If we do this at all, I think actually that is a good idea. >> MyProcPort->database_name is a *requested* db name, but arguably the >> %d log line field should represent the *actual* connected db name, >> which means it shouldn't start being reported until we have some >> confidence that such a DB exists. > Hm. I tentatively think that it's still reasonable to report it > earlier. There's a bunch of things (option processing, authentication) > that can error out before the database name is finally validated. It > seems somewhat helpful to give context there. What context? By definition, no such processing can depend on which database you're trying to connect to. > The reason I placed it where I did is that it's the first location where > we can be sure the database conected to is the correct one because now > the lock on the database is held and we've rechecked the name. No, if we've completed the previous lookup then the DB exists. The recheck is to catch the possibility that a rename or drop is completing concurrently --- but I don't think it's unreasonable to show the database's (old) name as soon as we've seen evidence that it does/did exist. 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