On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 1:54 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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.
Sure, that makes sense. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
