At Fri, 23 Oct 2020 17:12:44 -0400, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in > Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> writes: > > At Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:23:04 -0400, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in > >> ... The only real objection I can see is that it could > >> hold a server connection open when the user thinks there is none; > >> but that could only happen in a non-interactive script, and it does > >> not seem like a big problem in that case. We could alternatively > >> not stash the "dead" connection after a non-interactive \connect > >> failure, but I doubt that's better. > > > Agreed. Thanks! > > After further thought I decided we *must* do it as per my "alternative" > idea. Consider a script containing > \c db1 user1 live_server > \c db2 user2 dead_server > \c db3 > The script would be expecting to connect to db3 at dead_server, but > if we re-use parameters from the first connection then it might > successfully connect to db3 at live_server. This'd defeat the goal > of not letting a script accidentally execute commands against the > wrong database.
Hmm. True. > So we have to not save the connection after a failed script \connect. Yes, we shouldn't save a connection parameters that haven't made a connection. > However, it seems OK to save after a connection loss whether we're > in a script or not; that is, > > \c db1 user1 server1 > ... > (connection dies here) > ... --- these commands will fail > \c db2 > > The script will be expecting the second \c to re-use parameters > from the first one, and that will still work as expected. Agreed. > I went ahead and pushed it after adjusting that. Thanks! -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
