Robert Haas writes:
> I also think your other question is a good one. It seems like the
> fact that we need to reconnect -- rather than just prompting for the
> password and then sending it when we get it -- is an artifact of how
> libpq is designed rather than an intrinsic limitation of the prot
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:20:46AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > Otherwise ISTM that "-W/--password" still has some minimal value thus does
> > not deserve to be thrown out that quickly.
>
> I think I agree. I don't think this option is rea
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Otherwise ISTM that "-W/--password" still has some minimal value thus does
> not deserve to be thrown out that quickly.
I think I agree. I don't think this option is really hurting
anything, so I'm not quite sure why we would want to abrupt
It's first on our list of things not to do:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Don't_Do_This#Don.27t_use_psql_-W_or_--password
As I recall, when this has been discussed in the past, people objected
because they didn't like either (1) the extra server process fork and/or
network round trip cause
Vik Fearing writes:
> On 22/07/18 00:41, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> What is the rational?
> It's first on our list of things not to do:
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Don't_Do_This#Don.27t_use_psql_-W_or_--password
As I recall, when this has been discussed in the past, people objected
because t
On 22/07/18 00:41, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello David,
>
>> I'd like to $Subject for 12.
>>
>> There are scripts it could break, but not ones that weren't already
>> broken in ways important to access control.
>>
>> What say?
>
> What is the rational?
It's first on our list of things not to d
Hello David,
I'd like to $Subject for 12.
There are scripts it could break, but not ones that weren't already
broken in ways important to access control.
What say?
What is the rational?
I'm unsure of the logic behind removing -W (--password) but keeping -w
(--no-password), especially as
On 21/07/18 23:58, David Fetter wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I'd like to $Subject for 12.
>
> There are scripts it could break, but not ones that weren't already
> broken in ways important to access control.
>
> What say?
I say it should at least throw a sensible error for a few versions
before it's rem
Folks,
I'd like to $Subject for 12.
There are scripts it could break, but not ones that weren't already
broken in ways important to access control.
What say?
Best,
David.
--
David Fetter http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.pos
