Re: [HACKERS] new feature: LDAP database name resolution

2006-02-28 Thread Hans-Juergen Schoenig
On 21 Feb 2006, at 10:42, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 10:02:58AM +0100, Albe Laurenz wrote: Thank you also for drawing my attention to pg_service.conf - I have not been aware of it. There are two 'shortcomings': - It still means that you have to change the config

Re: [HACKERS] new feature: LDAP database name resolution

2006-02-28 Thread Albe Laurenz
I am now in the process of writing a patch against CVS HEAD that changes fe-connect.c as follows: - If there is a 'service' option or PGSERVICE is set, AND the environment PGLDAPSERVERS is set to a comma separated list of LDAP server URIs, LDAP name resolution cuts in. - Before

Re: [HACKERS] new feature: LDAP database name resolution

2006-02-28 Thread Andreas Pflug
Albe Laurenz wrote: I am now in the process of writing a patch against CVS HEAD that changes fe-connect.c as follows: - If there is a 'service' option or PGSERVICE is set, A little off-topic, but related: PeterE recently complained about an option in pgAdmin which is called service. Its

Re: [HACKERS] new feature: LDAP database name resolution

2006-02-28 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Albe Laurenz wrote: I am now in the process of writing a patch against CVS HEAD that changes fe-connect.c as follows: - If there is a 'service' option or PGSERVICE is set, AND the environment PGLDAPSERVERS is set to a comma separated list of LDAP server URIs, LDAP name resolution cuts in.

Re: [HACKERS] new feature: LDAP database name resolution

2006-02-28 Thread Albe Laurenz
I have added a configure option --with-openldap to enable the code. Does that make sense to you? Should I try to polish and test the code and submit it as a patch I would still much prefer to see remote config fetching done in a more general way, using say libcurl (which handles ldap just

Re: [HACKERS] new feature: LDAP database name resolution

2006-02-28 Thread Tom Lane
Albe Laurenz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am now in the process of writing a patch against CVS HEAD that changes fe-connect.c as follows: - If there is a 'service' option or PGSERVICE is set, AND the environment PGLDAPSERVERS is set to a comma separated list of LDAP server URIs, LDAP

Re: [HACKERS] new feature: LDAP database name resolution

2006-02-28 Thread Albe Laurenz
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

Re: [HACKERS] new feature: LDAP database name resolution

2006-02-28 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would still much prefer to see remote config fetching done in a more general way, using say libcurl (which handles ldap just fine if openldap is available). Then we could fetch the config from a variety of sources, not just ldap. What other cases

Re: [HACKERS] new feature: LDAP database name resolution

2006-02-28 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would still much prefer to see remote config fetching done in a more general way, using say libcurl (which handles ldap just fine if openldap is available). Then we could fetch the config from a variety of sources, not just

Re: [HACKERS] new feature: LDAP database name resolution

2006-02-21 Thread Albe Laurenz
Thanks to everybody who answered. Maybe it is really the best thing to use a tool like postgresql-relay or pgpool - I will investigate these. I'm not eager to reinvent the wheel. We have considered relocating DNS entries, but the problem is that a changed DNS entry takes long to propagate; in

Re: [HACKERS] new feature: LDAP database name resolution

2006-02-21 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 10:02:58AM +0100, Albe Laurenz wrote: Thank you also for drawing my attention to pg_service.conf - I have not been aware of it. There are two 'shortcomings': - It still means that you have to change the config file on every client. Well yes. However, you could

Re: [HACKERS] new feature: LDAP database name resolution

2006-02-21 Thread Russell Smith
Albe Laurenz wrote: Thanks to everybody who answered. Maybe it is really the best thing to use a tool like postgresql-relay or pgpool - I will investigate these. I'm not eager to reinvent the wheel. We have considered relocating DNS entries, but the problem is that a changed DNS entry takes

Re: [HACKERS] new feature: LDAP database name resolution

2006-02-20 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 02:36:42PM +0100, Albe Laurenz wrote: Dear developers of PostgreSQL! We (City of Vienna) have many Oracle databases, but plan to use PostgreSQL for our future database installations as much as possible. The following idea is inspired by Oracle. We sometimes need to

Re: [HACKERS] new feature: LDAP database name resolution

2006-02-20 Thread Stephen Frost
* Martijn van Oosterhout (kleptog@svana.org) wrote: Perhaps you should look into pg_service.conf. It's a configuration file such that in your connect line you can say: PQconnect(service=production); and in the config file you say: [production] host=db1 port=5434 dbname=main It's

Re: [HACKERS] new feature: LDAP database name resolution

2006-02-20 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 02:36:42PM +0100, Albe Laurenz wrote: $ psql -h host -p port -d database . you'd use something like $ psql -N dbalias ... and the client would perform a lookup on the LDAP server and retrieve host name, port and database name. I suggest you look at pgpool, which

Re: [HACKERS] new feature: LDAP database name resolution

2006-02-20 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Stephen Frost wrote: * Martijn van Oosterhout (kleptog@svana.org) wrote: Perhaps you should look into pg_service.conf. It's a configuration file such that in your connect line you can say: PQconnect(service=production); and in the config file you say: [production] host=db1 port=5434

Re: [HACKERS] new feature: LDAP database name resolution

2006-02-20 Thread Philip Warner
Albe Laurenz wrote: We sometimes need to move a database from one machine to another (hardware old/broken, upgrades, etc.). Now whenever a database is moved to a different computer, all the clients have to address the database at the new hostname. A lower-tech solution is: