Re: PQconninfo function for libpq

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PQconninfo function for libpq
Date: 2012-11-27 21:20:02
Message-ID: CABUevEycgDeCnZzB74E5pnSDnuHPiEaYPVRETik21Lv8-Gb4cg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On 11/22/12 6:44 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> I'm thinking it might be a better idea to just have PG_CONNINFO_NORMAL
>> and PG_CONNINFO_PASSWORD (which still make sense to separate),
>
> What is the use case for separating them?

Getting a connection string that doesn't contain sensitive information
like a password. In order to show it in a dialog box, for example.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-11-27 21:31:15 Re: Bugs in CREATE/DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2012-11-27 21:13:16 Re: PQconninfo function for libpq