Opened 13 years ago
Closed 13 years ago
#15131 closed (wontfix)
pg_service.conf support
| Reported by: | Owned by: | nobody | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Component: | Database layer (models, ORM) | Version: | 1.2 |
| Severity: | Keywords: | postgresql, pg_service, pg_service.conf | |
| Cc: | Triage Stage: | Unreviewed | |
| Has patch: | yes | Needs documentation: | no |
| Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |
| Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Description
In PostgreSQL, there is a config file, pg_service.conf, that allows one to define shortcut names to connection parameters. This makes it easy to migrate a database without having to mess with individual application configurations - just change the pg_service.conf file and you're done.
I've managed to get it working, although I'm not sure this is the right way to do it. Unfortunately, as far as I know, psycopg2 only supports a service name in a dsn string, not as a connection param, so I've had to run a completely separate connect() for pg_service. However, as a service name in pg_service.conf defines all of the other connection options, I don't think it's a large problem; it just bothers me that they need to be separate.
I'm also not sure how best to handle the case where there is a service name and also normal db connection params. On my side, since we're using pg_service for nearly everything, I've just got it ignoring normal connection params if a service name exists.
Anyway, a diff between my a/base.py and b/base.py (a being the original django/db/backends/postgresql_psycopg2 directory, b being the copy of a where I was doing my changes) is attached, more to show what I did than as a suggested patch - this was just a quick hack thrown together to get things working for me. The version of django I was editing was 1.2.4, I believe (python26 manage.py --version shows 1.2.4, at least). I've tested both with a service and with the original connection params, and it seems to work.
Attachments (1)
Change History (2)
by , 13 years ago
| Attachment: | django_pg_service.patch added |
|---|
comment:1 by , 13 years ago
| Resolution: | → wontfix |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
I'm not sure I see the benefit here. It's certainly nice that Postgres provides a way to perform the abstraction that you describe, but I'm not sure I see the advantage that is gained by having Django support it. It would be a configuration scheme that only works for Postgres -- no other backend (that I'm aware of) has an analogous configuration scheme. This means that the cross-database nature of Django would be somewhat compromised -- we would have a DATABASES setting that only works for Postgres.
Closing wontfix; please start a discussion on django-dev if you feel strongly about this.
Example patch to django/db/backends/postgresql_psycopg2/base.py to get pg_service working