public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: Laurenz Albe <[email protected]>
Cc: Dominique Devienne <[email protected]>
Cc: Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
Cc: David G. Johnston <[email protected]>
Cc: Igor Korot <[email protected]>
Cc: pgsql-generallists.postgresql.org <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Identify system databases
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 10:39:14 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <CA+FnnTxab=JyE0DZkfL4Z2MK8RvvTud9MZiNenD45AoV_t2Mxg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAKFQuwYaDXuuDoEaad5sYW97pRS_FJnmfZCwY3FojnDOdfXc9Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+FnnTzwmMTNymgPuiF4CLfa6YO+HBRx4Qy5_B_KDw1oNpiukw@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+FnnTyWMXPEVAwNNDnCVDfmTFNHdDfffiF5vLioxyTv8Jmq0A@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAKFQuwbkQTbUwA4c6LFOMUWX5ojQY8DpKPQRh+xoe4VZABPWfw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAKFQuwYpY7urAHuns26cw=9TKTZJU4JdVBrXWoSH_nHfZ_s3Ww@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAFCRh-_uEazAHjSz1WvL2STbR857V7E9YtkdwRO5xNNHLy2Ykw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
Laurenz Albe <[email protected]> writes:
> On Wed, 2025-04-16 at 10:09 +0200, Dominique Devienne wrote:
>> Authentication is cluster-wide, not DB specific, so I'd welcome a way to connect
>> to the cluster, not a specific DB, and introspect shared-objects,
>> including databases
>> I'm allowed to connect to, which could be an empty list.
> It is deep in the DNA of PostgreSQL that you always have to connect to
> a database, unless you establish a replication connection.
> I am surprised that you perceive that as a problem or limitation.
That isn't going to change, and here's why not: a lot of the critical
catalogs are per-database not shared. You aren't going to get
anywhere "introspecting shared objects" when you don't have a copy of
pg_class with which to find the shared catalogs, nor a copy of pg_proc
with which to look up index access method support procedures, etc etc.
You could imagine making up some mini-database that is somehow
forbidden from gaining any user-defined objects and then using
that, but I fail to see why that's a better idea than the
approach we use now. Not being able to use any user-defined
functions or views seems like a pretty huge handicap. And this
hypothetical new mini-database *would* be a special snowflake
in a way that none of the existing ones are, in that the system
would have to prevent actions that are perfectly okay in any
other one. I don't perceive that as a good thing.
(You can, of course, speculate about some major rearchitecting
of the system catalogs that would make this situation different.
I doubt that's going to happen at this point, though. There's
too much stuff that's dependent on how things are now.)
regards, tom lane
view thread (6+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fwd: Identify system databases
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox