BUG #14912: Undocumented: 'psql -l' assumes database 'postgresql' not $USER
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 14912
Logged by: Mark Wood
Email address: mhwood@ameritech.net
PostgreSQL version: 9.6.6
Operating system: Gentoo Linux, kernel 4.12, glibc 2.25-r9
Description:
The 'psql' man page explains that the default database name is your OS
username, and that $PGDATABASE can be used to supply a different default.
That is true *unless* using -l / --list. The code shows that this option
defaults to 'postgresql' instead, overriding the libpq defaulting. I spent
quite some time reading and experimenting to determine why I was not seeing
the documented behavior.
The actual behavior may be reasonable, but if so it should be documented as
an exception for the --list function.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:17 AM, <mhwood@ameritech.net> wrote:
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 14912
Logged by: Mark Wood
[...]That is true *unless* using -l / --list. The code shows that this option
defaults to 'postgresql' instead, overriding the libpq defaulting.
It actually defaults to "postgres"
[...]
The actual behavior may be reasonable, but if so it should be documented as
an exception for the --list function.
I can see an argument for either default, but given that this invocation
has never defaulted to the user's database I cannot see changing it.
I agree this should be considered a doc bug and back-patched. Possible
verbiage for master below and attached.
Changing the "Usage" section to point out this exception to the rule seems
undesirable.
David J.
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/psql-ref.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/psql-ref.sgml
index e520cdf3ba..ad2a505b1e 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/psql-ref.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/psql-ref.sgml
@@ -283,7 +283,9 @@ EOF
<listitem>
<para>
List all available databases, then exit. Other non-connection
- options are ignored. This is similar to the meta-command
+ options are ignored. If an explicit database name is not
+ found the <literal>postgres</literal> database, not the user's,
+ will be targeted for connection. This is similar to the meta-command
<command>\list</command>.
</para>
</listitem>Attachments:
psql-list-command-dbname-fix.patchapplication/octet-stream; name=psql-list-command-dbname-fix.patchDownload+3-1
Patch applied and backpatched through PG 10. Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 02:27:06PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:17 AM, <mhwood@ameritech.net> wrote:
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 14912
Logged by: Mark Wood
[...]That is true *unless* using -l / --list. The code shows that this option
defaults to 'postgresql' instead, overriding the libpq defaulting.It actually defaults to "postgres"
[...]
The actual behavior may be reasonable, but if so it should be documented as
an exception for the --list function.I can see an argument for either default, but given that this invocation has
never defaulted to the user's database I cannot see changing it.I agree this should be considered a doc bug and back-patched. Possible
verbiage for master below and attached.Changing the "Usage" section to point out this exception to the rule seems
undesirable.David J.
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/psql-ref.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/psql-ref.sgml index e520cdf3ba..ad2a505b1e 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/psql-ref.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/psql-ref.sgml @@ -283,7 +283,9 @@ EOF <listitem> <para> List all available databases, then exit. Other non-connection - options are ignored. This is similar to the meta-command + options are ignored. If an explicit database name is not + found the <literal>postgres</literal> database, not the user's, + will be targeted for connection. This is similar to the meta-command <command>\list</command>. </para> </listitem>
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/psql-ref.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/psql-ref.sgml index e520cdf3ba..ad2a505b1e 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/psql-ref.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/psql-ref.sgml @@ -283,7 +283,9 @@ EOF <listitem> <para> List all available databases, then exit. Other non-connection - options are ignored. This is similar to the meta-command + options are ignored. If an explicit database name is not + found the <literal>postgres</literal> database, not the user's, + will be targeted for connection. This is similar to the meta-command <command>\list</command>. </para> </listitem>
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
On 11/16/17 16:27, David G. Johnston wrote:
List all available databases, then exit. Other non-connection - options are ignored. This is similar to the meta-command + options are ignored. If an explicit database name is not + found the <literal>postgres</literal> database, not the user's, + will be targeted for connection. This is similar to the meta-command <command>\list</command>.
What does "an explicit database name is not found" mean? How does one
find an explicit database name?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 11/16/17 16:27, David G. Johnston wrote:
List all available databases, then exit. Other non-connection - options are ignored. This is similar to the meta-command + options are ignored. If an explicit database name is not + found the <literal>postgres</literal> database, not the user's, + will be targeted for connection. This is similar to themeta-command
<command>\list</command>.
What does "an explicit database name is not found" mean?
A name was not supplied to the psql command either as the first non-option
argument, via the --dbname command line option, in the connection URI
(possibly indirectly via a pg_service.conf entry), or via the PGDATABASE
environment variable.
How does one
find an explicit database name?
Given the answer above does this question still apply?
David J.
On 2/2/18 17:05, David G. Johnston wrote:
What does "an explicit database name is not found" mean?
A name was not supplied to the psql command either as the first
non-option argument, via the --dbname command line option, in the
connection URI (possibly indirectly via a pg_service.conf entry), or via
the PGDATABASE environment variable.
OK, clarified that a bit further. Actually, an environment variable
does not take any effect for this.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services