Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> On 2021-Jan-20, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I figured it was something like that. I don't know whether the right
>> thing is to use something like PQdb() to get the correct database
>> name, or whether we should go with Tom's suggestion and omit that
>> detail altogether, but I think showing the empty string when the user
>> relied on the default is too confusing.
> Well, the patch seems small enough, and I don't think it'll be in any
> way helpful to omit that detail.
I'm +1 for applying and back-patching that. I still think we might
want to just drop the phrase altogether in HEAD, but we wouldn't do
that in the back branches, and the message is surely misleading as-is.
regards, tom lane
