On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 10/24/16 11:57 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Today, since the host part can't include a
>> port specifier, it's regarded as part of the IP address, and I think
>> it would probably be a bad idea to change that, as I believe Victor's
>> patch would. He seems to have it in mind that we could allow things
>> like host=[1:2:3::4:5:6] or host=[1:2:3::4:5]:6, which would might be
>> helpful for the future but doesn't avoid changing the meaning of
>> connection strings that work today.
>
> Let's keep in mind here that the decision to allow database names to
> contain a connection parameter substructure has caused some security
> issues. Let's not create more levels of ambiguity and the need to pass
> around override flags.
I agree.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company