Re: BUG #14912: Undocumented: 'psql -l' assumes database 'postgresql'not $USER
| От | David G. Johnston |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: BUG #14912: Undocumented: 'psql -l' assumes database 'postgresql'not $USER |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKFQuwb2QgiMA=aWXpHkDmQSPWnO=mDJArX-UozddmQf8EoE+w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: BUG #14912: Undocumented: 'psql -l' assumes database 'postgresql'not $USER (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: BUG #14912: Undocumented: 'psql -l' assumes database 'postgresql'not $USER
|
| Список | pgsql-bugs |
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?
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.
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: