Re: Notes on implementing URI syntax for libpq

Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue nov 24 10:35:36 -0300 2011:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Alexander Shulgin
> <ash(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of Thu Nov 24 13:57:17 +0200 2011:
> >>
> >> I think it would be really weird not to support user:pw(at)host:port.  You can presumably also support the JDBC style for backward compatibility, but I don't think we should adopt that syntax as project standard.
> >
> > Well, I don't believe JDBC syntax is ideal either, but I don't recall any better option proposed in the original discussion: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-03/msg01945.php
> >
> > 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.

Apparently there's no standard:
http://www.petefreitag.com/articles/jdbc_urls/

Supporting the usual user:pw(at)host convention, _in addition to_ what our
own JDBC driver already supports, seems reasonable to me.

--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support