From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Paul Förster <paul(dot)foerster(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general list <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL URI |
Date: | 2021-02-25 15:43:03 |
Message-ID: | 128981.1614267783@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
=?utf-8?Q?Paul_F=C3=B6rster?= <paul(dot)foerster(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On 25. Feb, 2021, at 16:22, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Hmm. Maybe
>> postgresql://[user[:password](at)][host[:port][,...]][/dbname][?param1=value1&...]
>> ? Seems like that would clarify how much you can repeat.
> yes, that looks better, thanks.
Experimenting, it does let you omit the host and specify a port:
$ psql -d postgresql://:5433
psql: error: could not connect to server: No such file or directory
Is the server running locally and accepting
connections on Unix domain socket "/tmp/.s.PGSQL.5433"?
So the original syntax diagram is not wrong. We could add brackets
to clarify the repeatable part:
postgresql://[user[:password](at)][[host][:port][,...]][/dbname][?param1=value1&...]
but I'm less sure that that's an improvement.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Eric Brison | 2021-02-25 15:45:55 | Re: Extension intarray and null values |
Previous Message | Roman Liverovskiy | 2021-02-25 15:40:23 | Re: Server hangs on pg_repack |