On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Martijn van Oosterhout's message of jue nov 24 04:40:42 -0300 2011:
>
>> How about the "service" option, that's a nice way of handling
>> non-default socket options.
>
> What about it? Are you suggesting we should support some way to specify
> a service name in the URI?
>
> If so, consider this: if you set up a pg_service.conf file, and then
> pass around a URI that specifies a service, no one else can use the URI
> until you also pass around the service file.
>
> So, in that light, do we still think that letting the user specify a
> service name in the URI makes sense? (My personal opinion is yes).
service is just a connection parameter, so if we choose a URL format
that allows any connection parameter to be specified, this falls out
naturally, without any additional work. And if we don't choose such a
URL format, we are, in my humble opinion, crazy.
e.g. if we used the format suggested in my previous email, this would
just boil down to:
postgresql:///?service=foo
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company