Re: pgsql: Adjust user-facing documentation to explain why we don't check

From: Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Adjust user-facing documentation to explain why we don't check
Date: 2007-02-20 19:59:03
Message-ID: 45DB5307.3020204@postgresql.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers

Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> It would break insofar that it wouldn't work. the pgpass file. It will
> of course not break *windows*, but people will consider PostgreSQL broken.
>

Please explain why it won't work. *Existing* pgpass files would need to
be secured, but that could be handled with documentation and suitable
checks and hints in pgAdmin/libpq. New pgpass files created by pgAdmin
(or other apps) would simply need to be secured by those apps at
creation time.

/D

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-02-20 19:59:05 pgsql: Update "encode" documentation to mention that 'escape' only
Previous Message Dave Page 2007-02-20 19:54:45 Re: pgsql: Adjust user-facing documentation to explain why we don't check