From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
cc: Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>,
 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
 Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, brown@fastmail.com,
 "pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org" <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org>,
 pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #13741: vacuumdb does not accept valid password
In-reply-to: 
 <CAB7nPqS+W2iUK8YLky+nZtPuQ0RC5MuL0nQuKhLHOtv2yGEogQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAJrrPGeXuav-OYjJYKwSaLt+aOU+emH4a5XZS3XfMHNfanUmnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJrrPGetAZVhE=0YJY5idTYtSt2o1LCkkC9aQaw81kJg2RyWuw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151104021618.GP6104@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CAB7nPqSazOE_bB7koqHOY2gYM6vPs9e3D158ZCjxyJ61p1Ra8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB7nPqTq5PfQbMMCqJ4KRM8Q1ppOgVu4WziuEzm=3TNUN5wUoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHGQGwHx0BvxTDpo2xXS--gEJFQjjrTP4BZY8wRzUfPYakzEgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151112170303.GN614468@alvherre.pgsql> <15139.1447357263@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20151112212627.GR614468@alvherre.pgsql> <21797.1447365082@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20151112215841.GS614468@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CAB7nPqQmv7-JHhuyB2u8E4teGYWWNYsLhTk=mSiL2bKc2mvS1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJrrPGc=69kM=O2a3N09M9m2F5VmiGHKnLSjbayZRUNcOXmQ7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB7nPqS+W2iUK8YLky+nZtPuQ0RC5MuL0nQuKhLHOtv2yGEogQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
 message dated "Wed, 23 Dec 2015 22:52:20 +0900"
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 11:44:53 -0500
Message-ID: <6048.1450889093@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-bugs-owner@postgresql.org

Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Haribabu Kommi
> <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> That's neater. See for example the attached.

>> Yes, it is much cleaner than the previous version.
>> I reviewed and tested the same. It is working for all scenarios.

> This patch has fallen in the void and it simplifies greatly vacuumdb.c
> and its password-related routines. I have added it to the next CF to
> not forget about it:

Sorry for having lost track of this.  I think if we're going to do this,
we should do it now not later, because it essentially reverts the
connectDatabase() API change made in 83dec5a71 in favor of a different API
change with the same purpose.  Now, that doesn't matter if no third-party
code is using connectDatabase(), but I have a suspicion that there
probably is some.  Any such users will not thank us for whacking
connectDatabase's API around in 9.5 and then whacking it around
differently in 9.6.

In short, I think we should apply this now and back-patch into 9.5,
like the prior patch, even though we're post-RC1.  The reduction in
cross-version API churn is worth it.

If no objections, I'll go do that shortly.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs