Re: whats the deal with -u ?

* Peter Eisentraut (peter_e@gmx.net) wrote:
> So as far as I can tell, the available options -U and -W serve all the
> existing use cases.  I would have no issue with getting rid of the -W option
> if someone wants to take responsibility for ensuring that it will really
> never be necessary.  I see no technical or usability merit in reviving the -u
> option.  I hope the above explanations have shed some light on that.

I think getting rid of -W would cause a problem w/ PAM in some instances
since, iirc, PG will try PAM w/o a password first and only prompt if it
doesn't work.  That's pretty ugly if you're using things like pam_tally
to limit the number of bad attempts allowed.  (This is entirely
empirical, it's possible there's some other explanation for what's
happening, but I recall having to use -W to get PG to not cause PAM to
make noisies in my auth.log...).
Thanks,
    Stephen