From: | Alexander Shulgin <ash(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Notes on implementing URI syntax for libpq |
Date: | 2011-11-24 13:50:47 |
Message-ID: | 1322142391-sup-2339@moon |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of Thu Nov 24 15:35:36 +0200 2011:
>
> > Do you suggest that we should reconsider?
>
> I guess my feeling is that if we're going to have URLs, we ought to
> try to adhere to the same conventions that are used for pretty much
> every other service that supports URLs. user:pw(at)host:port is widely
> supported by multiple protocols, so I think we would need a very good
> reason to decide to go off in a completely different direction. It
> would be nice to be compatible with whatever JDBC does (link?) but I'm
> not prepared to put that ahead of general good design.
What JDBC supports is rather weird and far from being ideal: http://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/head/connect.html
The problem with supporting multiple syntaxes, IMO is that it makes libpq compatible in only one direction: from particular foreign syntax to libpq, but not from libqp to any other particular foreign syntax. So when you see psql -d <URL> you wouldn't know if you can copy that URL to JDBC or any other connection interface parameter, unless you check the docs thoroughly.
--
Alex
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-11-24 13:52:03 | Re: Notes on implementing URI syntax for libpq |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-11-24 13:48:39 | Re: Time bug with small years |