On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 10/24/16 11:57 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> Today, since the host part can't include a >> port specifier, it's regarded as part of the IP address, and I think >> it would probably be a bad idea to change that, as I believe Victor's >> patch would. He seems to have it in mind that we could allow things >> like host=[1:2:3::4:5:6] or host=[1:2:3::4:5]:6, which would might be >> helpful for the future but doesn't avoid changing the meaning of >> connection strings that work today. > > Let's keep in mind here that the decision to allow database names to > contain a connection parameter substructure has caused some security > issues. Let's not create more levels of ambiguity and the need to pass > around override flags.
I agree. -- 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
