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
