| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Borisov <lex(dot)borisov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal to add a new URL data type. |
| Date: | 2024-12-06 13:46:23 |
| Message-ID: | 5CDF62D7-64B5-469C-B446-0D11464F6767@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 6 Dec 2024, at 13:59, Alexander Borisov <lex(dot)borisov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> As I've written before, there is a difference between parsing URLs
> according to the RFC 3986 specification and WHATWG URLs. This is
> especially true for host. Here are a couple more examples.
As someone who wears another open-source hat which is heavily involved in
parsing URLs I cannot stress enough how much I think postgres should avoid
this. The example url http://http://http://@http://http://?http://#http:// is
a valid url, but is rejected by a number of implementations and parsed
differently by most that accept it.
A URL datatype is a *good idea* but one which I personally believe is best
handled as an external extension.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2024-12-06 14:01:03 | Re: Pass ParseState as down to utility functions. |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2024-12-06 13:46:01 | Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY? |