On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 5:09 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > On tis, 2011-09-06 at 17:12 +0200, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 02:27:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> > It's not just the port, it's all the connection parameters --- >> > do_connect relies on the PGconn object to remember those, and in this >> > case there no longer is a PGconn object. >> > >> > We could have psql keep that information separately, but I'm not sure >> > it's really worth the trouble. >> >> well, I think it's definitely worth the trouble. If I had datbaase >> standing at 5432, it would connect to it, and then I could mistakenly >> ran commands to wrong database. >> this is clearly not a good thing. > > Perhaps just prevent \connect without argument if the information is no > longer available.
I think it'd be worth actually having psql maintain the information separately from the PGconn... but if nobody feels motivated to go do that, doing at least this much would remove the foot-gun. So +1 for that. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
