From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Paul Förster <paul(dot)foerster(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general list <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL URI |
Date: | 2021-02-26 14:30:50 |
Message-ID: | 20210226143050.GA875@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 2021-Feb-25, Paul Förster wrote:
> So, my suggestion is:
>
> postgresql://[user[:password](at)][[host][:port]][,...][/dbname][?param1=value1&...]
>
> Still, I think that it's an improvement, because it makes clear that not only the port, but also the host may be repeated.
I wonder if we shouldn't instead try to break it up in parts that can be
explained or described separately. This many brackets makes it pretty
hard to read.
We could say something like
postgresql://[userspec(at)][hostspec][/dbname][?paramspec]
where
userspec is user[:password]
hostspec is [[host][:port]][,...]
paramspec is param1=value1&...
which makes it easier to focus on each part separately, and we can
provide more verbose explanations or examples where needed. (Now that I
broke it up, the original line became very clear to me, but when I saw
it in isolation it was not. You need to count brackets carefully to be
able to read it.)
--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Paul Förster | 2021-02-26 14:47:37 | Re: PostgreSQL URI |
Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2021-02-26 11:45:15 | Re: Tables used by a function |