"Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net> writes:
> Personally, I don't really care :-) My point was that ".pgpass" is bad.
> "pgpass" or "pgpass.conf" or "pgpass.txt" are all fine by me. I agree
> that .conf might be more logical than .txt.
I think the analogy to .conf is bogus. The existing files named .conf
are server config not client config, and they don't have leading dots
in their names on Unix either.
Also, the whole point of this exercise is to make these files easy to
edit for newbies. The fact that an association *could* be configured
for .conf seems to me to miss the point: anyone who knows enough to do
that wouldn't have a problem with any spelling whatever...
regards, tom lane