> Uh, why is it a good idea to overload the "service" option like that?
> ISTM it'd be less confusing to use a separate option. Further I
suggest
> that pg_service ought to be handled first, ie, it makes sense to me to
> be able to put both the LDAP name and the LDAP server address(es) into
a
> pg_service.conf entry. The other way (LDAP pointing to
pg_service.conf)
> is clearly nonsensical, but that doesn't mean that they aren't useful
> together.
That idea is much better than my original one.
There could be a pg_service.conf entry like this:
[servicename]
ldap://server.domain/dn?filter?scope?attribute
or similar that retrieves a string to be used as connection options.
Would that satisfy everybody (if I use curl instead of openldap)?
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
