Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: new feature: LDAP database name resolution

From: "Albe Laurenz" <all(at)adv(dot)magwien(dot)gv(dot)at>
To: "Albe Laurenz" <all(at)adv(dot)magwien(dot)gv(dot)at>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: new feature: LDAP database name resolution
Date: 2006-02-28 15:55:26
Message-ID: 52EF20B2E3209443BC37736D00C3C1380718AAB0@EXADV1.host.magwien.gv.at (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> 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

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-02-28 15:59:46
Subject: Re: bug in 7.3.2
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-02-28 15:44:32
Subject: Re: character encoding in StartupMessage

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group