From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Doyle, Bryan" <Bryan(dot)Doyle(at)gs(dot)com> |
Cc: | "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Service Name Enhancement - Wildcard support for LDAP/DNS lookup |
Date: | 2014-10-21 19:15:48 |
Message-ID: | 9913.1413918948@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Doyle, Bryan" <Bryan(dot)Doyle(at)gs(dot)com> writes:
> Would specifying a special value for the service name, perhaps [%], be an acceptable implementation of this enhancement/fix to my above concerns?
> Example:
> # comment
> [%]
> host=%.domain.com
> port=5433
> user=admin
This doesn't seem like a terribly good idea, because such an entry would
capture *any* service name whatsoever. And, since we check service names
before other possibilities such as host/database names, the entry would
then proceed to capture every possible connection request.
I follow what you're trying to do, but it needs to be a more constrained
syntax. One possibility is to insist that the wildcard be only a part
of the name string, eg
[myservers-%]
host=%.domain.com
port=5433
user=admin
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2014-10-21 19:46:33 | expected/sequence_1.out obsolete? |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2014-10-21 19:14:13 | Re: Directory/File Access Permissions for COPY and Generic File Access Functions |