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
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 |