Обсуждение: [HACKERS] PGSERVICEFILE as a connection string parameter

Hi all,

I bumped into a case where it would have been rather useful to specify
a service file path in a connection string with a service name. In my
case, I have finished by setting up PGSERVICEFILE, but now like
PGPASSFILE I think that being able to define the service file
available as well as a connection parameter would be useful as well.

I am not planning to work on that immediately (there is one day left
for the last CF of PG10!), but I was wondering if people would be
interested in something like that.
So, opinions?
-- 
Michael

Hi,

On 2017-02-27 14:43:49 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I bumped into a case where it would have been rather useful to specify
> a service file path in a connection string with a service name. In my
> case, I have finished by setting up PGSERVICEFILE, but now like
> PGPASSFILE I think that being able to define the service file
> available as well as a connection parameter would be useful as well.
>
> I am not planning to work on that immediately (there is one day left
> for the last CF of PG10!), but I was wondering if people would be
> interested in something like that.

Hm - I'm not sure that's a good idea. service files are a libpq feature,
but connection strings are a bit more universal than just libpq...

Regards,

Andres

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 10:03:40PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2017-02-27 14:43:49 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > I bumped into a case where it would have been rather useful to
> > specify a service file path in a connection string with a service
> > name. In my case, I have finished by setting up PGSERVICEFILE, but
> > now like PGPASSFILE I think that being able to define the service
> > file available as well as a connection parameter would be useful
> > as well.
> >
> > I am not planning to work on that immediately (there is one day
> > left for the last CF of PG10!), but I was wondering if people
> > would be interested in something like that.
> 
> Hm - I'm not sure that's a good idea. service files are a libpq
> feature, but connection strings are a bit more universal than just
> libpq...

You bring up a salient point.  What say we make pg_services a little
more universal?  I'm guessing that the Java port wouldn't be too
complicated.  It's already well defined.

Best,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

On 2017-02-27 16:23:46 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 7:03 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On 2017-02-27 14:43:49 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > I bumped into a case where it would have been rather useful to specify
> > > a service file path in a connection string with a service name. In my
> > > case, I have finished by setting up PGSERVICEFILE, but now like
> > > PGPASSFILE I think that being able to define the service file
> > > available as well as a connection parameter would be useful as well.
> > >
> > > I am not planning to work on that immediately (there is one day left
> > > for the last CF of PG10!), but I was wondering if people would be
> > > interested in something like that.
> >
> > Hm - I'm not sure that's a good idea. service files are a libpq feature,
> > but connection strings are a bit more universal than just libpq...
> >
>
> That same argument applies to PGPASSFILE, does it not?

It does.  I'm not really convinced it's a good idea to have that as a
full blown parameter, but as you say:

> Properly implementing PGSERVICEFILE is more complicated though -- as it
> requires LDAP support to go there the whole way for example.



> But it might not hurt to encourage other drivers (such as jdbc) to
> support at least the basic format of pgpass.

Probably makes sense to bring in some of the external driver authors
(jdbc, npgsql CCed).

Greetings,

Andres Freund