| From: | Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | |
| Cc: | Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Comments in .pgpass file... |
| Date: | 2024-05-21 03:13:45 |
| Message-ID: | CANzqJaBvfqHBe83GAmCO2B56KxpOnCEr-myCpS1YD9O51op5Rg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 11:04 PM David G. Johnston <
david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
[snip]
> That would seem oddly specific and easily falsifiable. Which is probably
> why no one else has pointed out the odd wording.
>
Or people grumble silently.
> Reasonable but probably not worth the hassle to figure out the details.
> Though I’d be tempted to formalize the existing behavior and just add an
> optional field after password to hold a description. If we do ever extend
> off the end to specify yet more fields we’d make all the preceding optional
> fields mandatory.
>
I like that idea.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sathish Reddy | 2024-05-22 09:56:36 | Pg_cron |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2024-05-21 03:04:13 | Re: Comments in .pgpass file... |