On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Martijn van Oosterhout's message of jue nov 24 04:40:42 -0300 > 2011: > >> How about the "service" option, that's a nice way of handling >> non-default socket options. > > What about it? Are you suggesting we should support some way to specify > a service name in the URI? > > If so, consider this: if you set up a pg_service.conf file, and then > pass around a URI that specifies a service, no one else can use the URI > until you also pass around the service file. > > So, in that light, do we still think that letting the user specify a > service name in the URI makes sense? (My personal opinion is yes).
service is just a connection parameter, so if we choose a URL format that allows any connection parameter to be specified, this falls out naturally, without any additional work. And if we don't choose such a URL format, we are, in my humble opinion, crazy. e.g. if we used the format suggested in my previous email, this would just boil down to: postgresql:///?service=foo -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
