Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Patch: psql \whoami option

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Steve Singer <ssinger_pg(at)sympatico(dot)ca>, David Christensen <david(at)endpoint(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Patch: psql \whoami option
Date: 2010-06-21 14:51:47
Message-ID: 12588.1277131907@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Is there really a point to the non-DSN format or should we just use
> the DSN format always?

BTW, didn't have an opinion on that to start with, but after thinking
about it I'd turn it around.  psql doesn't deal in DSN format anywhere
else, so why should it do so here?  To make the point more obvious,
what's the justification for printing DSN format and not, say, JDBC URL
format?  I'd vote for removing the DSN printout option, not the other
way round.  If there was some mechanically readable format to offer to
print, it would be conninfo string format, which you can actually use
with psql if you have a mind to.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-06-21 15:01:05
Subject: Re: extensible enum types
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2010-06-21 14:43:45
Subject: Re: extensible enum types

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group