From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Why do we have a database specification in .pgpass? |
Date: | 2010-10-21 21:46:50 |
Message-ID: | 201010212146.o9LLkoK24130@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On ons, 2010-10-13 at 14:32 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > We have a database specification in .pgpass:
> >
> > hostname:port:database:username:password
> >
> > What is the purpose of 'database' since username/password combinations
> > are global, not per database? I would like to documents its purpose.
>
> As a side note, the thing at the other end of a connection is not
> necessarily a PostgreSQL server. It could be a connection pool proxy.
> I don't know if any implementatation could make use of the database
> field at the moment, but it should be kept in mind.
>
> That said, it would probably be good to document that the database field
> is currently only useful in certain limited circumstances.
Agreed, done.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
/rtmp/diff | text/x-diff | 640 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-10-21 21:47:25 | Re: UNION ALL has higher cost than inheritance |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-10-21 21:21:30 | Re: pg_rawdump |