hackers - any opinions?
The biggest downside would be that a pgpass file would be version
specific for this feature. The badness of this is somewhat mitigated by
the ability we now have to specify an alternative pgpassfile location.
cheers
andrew
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] .pgpass file and unix domain sockets
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 12:16:53 -0400
From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: Joachim Wieland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, pgsql-patches@postgresql.org
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Personally I wouldn't object to making it match "localhost" in all
cases. That's what the documentation says, and the use-case for
doing something more complicated seems pretty thin.
I almost agree. If anything, I'd prefer to provide for an explicit entry
covering all Unix Domain sockets - it took me by some surprise to find a
while back that "localhost" covers that case - it seems a mismatch with
how pg_hba.conf works.
Well, that'd break existing .pgpass files (unless we match localhost
too, which seems to defeat the purpose). But maybe it's worth doing
for consistency's sake. I think we should bring it up on a more
widely read list than -patches if you want to propose a
non-backwards-compatible change ...
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
