On 2017-02-27 16:23:46 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 7:03 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On 2017-02-27 14:43:49 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > I bumped into a case where it would have been rather useful to specify
> > > a service file path in a connection string with a service name. In my
> > > case, I have finished by setting up PGSERVICEFILE, but now like
> > > PGPASSFILE I think that being able to define the service file
> > > available as well as a connection parameter would be useful as well.
> > >
> > > I am not planning to work on that immediately (there is one day left
> > > for the last CF of PG10!), but I was wondering if people would be
> > > interested in something like that.
> >
> > Hm - I'm not sure that's a good idea. service files are a libpq feature,
> > but connection strings are a bit more universal than just libpq...
> >
> 
> That same argument applies to PGPASSFILE, does it not?

It does.  I'm not really convinced it's a good idea to have that as a
full blown parameter, but as you say:

> Properly implementing PGSERVICEFILE is more complicated though -- as it
> requires LDAP support to go there the whole way for example.



> But it might not hurt to encourage other drivers (such as jdbc) to
> support at least the basic format of pgpass.

Probably makes sense to bring in some of the external driver authors
(jdbc, npgsql CCed).

Greetings,

Andres Freund


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to