Thread: .ini support for .pgpass
The current structure of .pgpass is: hostname:port:database:username:password Bare, useful, but not really friendly nor flexible. I would love to be able to do this: If no ini block: hostname:port:database:username:password else: [ecom] hostname= port= database= username= password= [drupal] hostname= port= database= username= password= psql ecom boom, I am in. Thoughts? JD -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
On 4/5/11 3:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Bare, useful, but not really friendly nor flexible. I would love to be > able to do this: I'll second that I help people troubleshoot a lot of .pgpass files where the basic issue is getting the fields out of order. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On Apr 5, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > boom, I am in. > > Thoughts? boom, you have patch? David
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 15:38 -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Apr 5, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > boom, I am in. > > > > Thoughts? > > boom, you have patch? I'll write it, if I am not going to be tied up for months arguing about it :P. Thus, I wanted to see if the community was interested first. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > David > > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Bare, useful, but not really friendly nor flexible. I would love to be > able to do this: > [ecom] > hostname= > port= > database= > username= > password= That looks a lot like a pg_service file. > psql ecom > > boom, I am in. > > Thoughts? So you're really looking to make psql use "service" connection definitions more easily, not just retrieve the password associated with the given (maybe defaulted) host:port:database:user, right? a. -- Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, aidan@highrise.ca command like a king, http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 18:52 -0400, Aidan Van Dyk wrote: > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > > Bare, useful, but not really friendly nor flexible. I would love to be > > able to do this: > > > [ecom] > > hostname= > > port= > > database= > > username= > > password= > > That looks a lot like a pg_service file. > > > psql ecom > > > > boom, I am in. > > > > Thoughts? > > So you're really looking to make psql use "service" connection > definitions more easily, not just retrieve the password associated > with the given (maybe defaulted) host:port:database:user, right? Well any libpq app but yes. I actually wonder as to the legitmacy of having both a pgpass and a pg_service. Why not just one of them? JD > > a. > > -- > Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, > aidan@highrise.ca command like a king, > http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave. > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
On tis, 2011-04-05 at 16:04 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Well any libpq app but yes. I actually wonder as to the legitmacy of > having both a pgpass and a pg_service. Why not just one of them? So you can keep passwords in a safer place (= less permissions) than the rest of the connection information. Note also that .pgpass is a mapping from connection information to password, whereas pg_service.conf is a mapping from service name to connection information. So they operate on different levels. It's not actually clear from your syntax example what semantics you are trying to achieve.
On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 07:47 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On tis, 2011-04-05 at 16:04 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > Well any libpq app but yes. I actually wonder as to the legitmacy of > > having both a pgpass and a pg_service. Why not just one of them? > > So you can keep passwords in a safer place (= less permissions) than the > rest of the connection information. > > Note also that .pgpass is a mapping from connection information to > password, whereas pg_service.conf is a mapping from service name to > connection information. So they operate on different levels. > > It's not actually clear from your syntax example what semantics you are > trying to achieve. I want to achieve two things: 1. More understandable .pgpass format. Yes, I understand our standard format, most people won't. Like JoshB said, hard to debug. 2. psql foo, gets me into foo. A macro for connections if you will. JD > > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 11:55:04PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > I want to achieve two things: > > 1. More understandable .pgpass format. Yes, I understand our standard > format, most people won't. Like JoshB said, hard to debug. This I understand. > 2. psql foo, gets me into foo. A macro for connections if you will. But this is precisely what the service file achieves, right? ISTM what you d like is to be able to specify the password in the service file, in which case pgpass is not consulted. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, > when hate for people other than your own comes first. > - Charles de Gaulle
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > I want to achieve two things: > > 1. More understandable .pgpass format. Yes, I understand our standard > format, most people won't. Like JoshB said, hard to debug. How about allowing '#'-comments there and putting field list into all templates, examples and manpages? man 5 pgpass? pgpass.sample? IOW, do we need to change format or are we having documentation problem? -- marko
Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> 1. More understandable .pgpass format. Yes, I understand our standard
>> format, most people won't. Like JoshB said, hard to debug.
> How about allowing '#'-comments there and putting field
> list into all templates, examples and manpages?
> man 5 pgpass?
> pgpass.sample?
> IOW, do we need to change format or are we having documentation problem?
+1 for seeing this as a documentation problem. I don't think that
converting the file to .ini style is going to somehow make it
magically easier to use --- people still have to understand it,
and frankly .ini format is just another format that not everyone knows.
#-comments seem like a fine idea.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 09:10 +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 11:55:04PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > I want to achieve two things: > > > > 1. More understandable .pgpass format. Yes, I understand our standard > > format, most people won't. Like JoshB said, hard to debug. > > This I understand. > > > 2. psql foo, gets me into foo. A macro for connections if you will. > > But this is precisely what the service file achieves, right? ISTM what > you d like is to be able to specify the password in the service file, > in which case pgpass is not consulted. Right, as I said (I thought) earlier, after reviewing pg_service it seems that pgpass is (or pg_service is) redundant. It should be one file. JD > > Have a nice day, -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
On ons, 2011-04-06 at 09:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com> writes: > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > >> 1. More understandable .pgpass format. Yes, I understand our standard > >> format, most people won't. Like JoshB said, hard to debug. > > > How about allowing '#'-comments there and putting field > > list into all templates, examples and manpages? > > > man 5 pgpass? > > > pgpass.sample? > > > IOW, do we need to change format or are we having documentation problem? > > +1 for seeing this as a documentation problem. I don't think that > converting the file to .ini style is going to somehow make it > magically easier to use --- people still have to understand it, > and frankly .ini format is just another format that not everyone knows. > > #-comments seem like a fine idea. But it would have to be the user that would put the comment in there, since we can't really install a default file. I think a man page would be the best documentation method for in-the-moment reference.
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: >> #-comments seem like a fine idea. > > But it would have to be the user that would put the comment in there, > since we can't really install a default file. What about preparing something like pgpass.sample and installing it into $PREFIX/share, like recovery.conf? > I think a man page would be the best documentation method for > in-the-moment reference. This would be also helpful. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center