> Uh, why is it a good idea to overload the "service" option like that? > ISTM it'd be less confusing to use a separate option. Further I suggest > that pg_service ought to be handled first, ie, it makes sense to me to > be able to put both the LDAP name and the LDAP server address(es) into a > pg_service.conf entry. The other way (LDAP pointing to pg_service.conf) > is clearly nonsensical, but that doesn't mean that they aren't useful > together.
That idea is much better than my original one. There could be a pg_service.conf entry like this: [servicename] ldap://server.domain/dn?filter?scope?attribute or similar that retrieves a string to be used as connection options. Would that satisfy everybody (if I use curl instead of openldap)? Yours, Laurenz Albe ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
