From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: adding PGPASSWORDFILE to libpq |
Date: | 2002-08-10 05:13:37 |
Message-ID: | 21048.1028956417@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Currently the format for the file should be
>> host:port:database:user:password
> I think just the password. If you need a different password, select a
> different file.
> The sort of format you propose makes it much too convenient for users to
> build password databases in files, which kind of defeats the point of
> passwords.
Why is it better to make the user's life more difficult? If I have
several different database passwords to keep track of, and I'm going
to store them in $HOME/.foo files, I'd rather keep them all in one such
.foo file. That means only one file to get the permissions right on.
I am not aware of *any* other Unix utility that diverges from this
scheme: cvs does it that way, ftp does it that way, ssh does it that
way, xauth does it that way ... need I go on?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-10 05:16:20 | Re: [HACKERS] CREATE TEMP TABLE .... ON COMMIT |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-08-10 05:12:26 | Re: Proposal: stand-alone composite types |