On 6/22/15 9:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> writes:
On 6/19/15 10:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
On the other hand, you could argue that improving the string is going
to break clients that do the right thing (even if klugily) in order
to help clients that are doing the wrong thing (ie, failing without
offering the opportunity to enter a password). Ideally no client app
would ever show this message to users and so its readability would not
matter.
Could we return a HINT? Or is that part of the same string?
Unfortunately no, there's no out-of-band additions possible here.
It strikes me that my argument above is too myopic, because I was only
thinking about cases where the client can plausibly do an interactive
prompt for password. If it cannot (eg, psql --no-password, or perhaps
the process has no controlling terminal) then what you're going to see
is whatever message libpq returns. So if people feel that this message
is not clear enough, maybe it's time to break compatibility and change it.
I do not follow Craig's argument that this is somehow connected to the
wire protocol version. It's not; it's part of the libpq-to-client API.
If there ever is a protocol version 4, it will almost certainly not
trigger significant changes in that API --- there might be additions,
but not incompatible changes. So if we think we can't change that
message now, then face it, we never will.
Yeah, looking at Craig's extensive review, it seems most of those places
wouldn't actually prompt for a password, so I think it's best that we
just change this.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
