Re: Docs for service file

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Well, it seems like a nifty features.  What do others think?  It allows
> centralized connection parameters.

It seems quite bogus to me: what good is a configuration file on the
server machine to clients on other machines?  (And if it's not on the
server, one can hardly call it centralized.)

A proper design for such a feature would pass the service name as part
of the startup packet and let the postmaster fill in missing fields
using a server-side config file.  Then it would be useful for local
and remote clients alike.

Rather than documenting it and thereby locking ourselves into a
misdesigned "feature", I'd vote for removing code and docs too.
We can put the concept on the TODO-for-protocol-change list instead.

            regards, tom lane