Tom Lane wrote:
> "Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net> writes:
> > Personally, I don't really care :-) My point was that ".pgpass" is bad.
> > "pgpass" or "pgpass.conf" or "pgpass.txt" are all fine by me. I agree
> > that .conf might be more logical than .txt.
>
> I think the analogy to .conf is bogus. The existing files named .conf
> are server config not client config, and they don't have leading dots
> in their names on Unix either.
I don't think it is bogus. The reason our client config files don't
have *.conf is because they have dots --- the leading dot says it is a
config file to me. Win32 doesn't support leading dots mean config files
so we add *.conf. Also, pg_service.conf is a client file used by libpq.
I don't see why file extensions for the server should not also be
similar for clients.
> Also, the whole point of this exercise is to make these files easy to
> edit for newbies. The fact that an association *could* be configured
> for .conf seems to me to miss the point: anyone who knows enough to do
> that wouldn't have a problem with any spelling whatever...
What I am saying is that no one else uses *.txt for config files on
Win32 and it is confusing. The *.txt will confuse everyone, experts and
novices, while *.conf is clear but will be a little harder for novices
to open. Also remember the files will normally not exist so novices are
going to have to create those files first anyway.
At this point, Andrew, Magnus, and I who deal with Win32 regularly all
feel *.conf is more logical than *.txt. I have not heard anyone say
*.txt is better except Tom. Is that enough of a vote?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
