Re: Should psql support URI syntax?

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should psql support URI syntax?
Date: 2011-04-01 12:13:34
Message-ID: 4D95C16E.2060108@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 04/01/2011 04:34 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:24, Dave Page<dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Joshua Berkus<josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> I would think it would be purely syntatic sugar really, which does
>>>> incorporate a familiar interface for those who are working in
>>>> different
>>>> worlds (.Net/Drupal/JAVA) etc...
>>> I wouldn't mind having something more standard supported; I'm always looking up the conninfo for the options I don't use frequently.
>> I have a sneaking suspicion that the options you have to look up won't
>> be any more obvious (or standardized) in a URI connection string.
>>
>> That said, I do support adding this in the future, if only to keep up
>> with the Jones'.
> So are the ones out there *already* even compatible, before we start
> adding our own? For example, for JDBC I beleive it has to be
> jdbc:postgresql://blahblah... Even if you can say the jdbc part is
> protocol specific, the example quoted by JD had pgsql://. How many
> other combinations can we find already out in the wild, and how do we
> pick which one to use in this case?
>

Of course they aren't compatible. So we solve that by just adding to the
soup!

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thom Brown 2011-04-01 12:13:54 Re: Foreign table permissions and cloning
Previous Message Gianni Ciolli 2011-04-01 12:08:51 Re: Transforming IN (...) to ORs, volatility