pgcli couldn't parse password that contained character '#' #1512

Activity

1. dbaty commented on May 29, 2025

   

   dbaty

   on May 29, 2025

   Member

   More actions

   This is due to pgcli using the configobj library to load .pg_service.conf file. This library interprets "password=abc#123" as the value abc followed by an inline comment. psql does not do the same and sees abc#123 as the password.

   For configobj (and thus the current version of pgcli) to correctly parse the password, one could enclose the password in quotes in .pg_service.conf, like this: password="abc#123".

   But then the file would not be compatible with psql anymore, since psql would see the password as "abc#123" with the quotes.

   The configparser standard Python module does not support inline comments by default (see documentation here). So if pgcli used it to parse .pg_service_conf ,pgcli would behave like psql. We could use it to parse .pg_service.conf, something like this:

   -    with open(service_file, newline="") as f:
   -        skipped_lines = skip_initial_comment(f)
   -        try:
   -            service_file_config = ConfigObj(f)
   -        except ParseError as err:
   -            err.line_number += skipped_lines
   -            raise err
   -    if service not in service_file_config:
   +    service_file_config = configparser.ConfigParser()
   +    service_file_config.read(service_file)
   +    try:
   +        section = service_file_config[service]
   +    except KeyError:
            return None, service_file
   -    service_conf = service_file_config.get(service)
   -    return service_conf, service_file
   +    return dict(section), service_file

   (It's a quick-and-dirty and not thoroughly tested patch, but it seems to work.)

   Pros: it makes pgcli compatible with psql way of parsing .pg_service.conf.
   Cons: it breaks pgcli's current behaviour for users who quotes password (or other values) in that file.

   I think that a better feature parity with psql is worth this (small) breaking change (which can be documented in the changelog and easily fixed by users). @amjith and @j-bennet : what's your take on this? If you agree, I'll make a bit more tests and create a pull request.

   👍React with 👍2Reacted by wangteng and Chris Roberts
2. leafonsword commented on May 30, 2025

   

   leafonsword

   on May 30, 2025

   Author

   More actions

   @dbaty
   Thanks for explaination, I think using configparser is a better solution that compatible with psql.