X-Original-To: pgsql-bugs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1843D53771 for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 10:49:32 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 39803-10 for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 13:49:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D20B5376B for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 10:49:29 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j4DDnRF0023306; Fri, 13 May 2005 09:49:27 -0400 (EDT) To: Martin Pitt Cc: PostgreSQL Bugs Subject: Re: Fwd: Bug#308535: postgresql-client: [psql] manual page does not document ~/.pgpass file In-reply-to: <20050512204326.GC21489@piware.de> References: <20050512204326.GC21489@piware.de> Comments: In-reply-to Martin Pitt message dated "Thu, 12 May 2005 22:43:26 +0200" Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 09:49:27 -0400 Message-ID: <23305.1115992167@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200505/127 X-Sequence-Number: 11831 Martin Pitt writes: > We recently got the bug report below. Do you agree that documenting > ~/.pgpass in psql(1) is a good idea? On that theory we'd have to replicate large parts of the libpq documentation on every one of the "client application" pages, which doesn't seem very maintainable. (.pgpass is just the tip of the iceberg; the "environment variables" and "SSL support" pages are also pretty critical for users to know about.) I agree that there needs to be some more prominent mention, but this doesn't look like the way to do it. Maybe some "see also" links? regards, tom lane