From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Adrian von Bidder <avbidder(at)fortytwo(dot)ch>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Should psql support URI syntax? |
Date: | 2011-04-06 17:33:02 |
Message-ID: | 1302111182.3238.14.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On sön, 2011-04-03 at 12:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Well, there isn't any requirement that URIs be
>
> > prot://hostname:port/something
>
> > They just have to be
>
> > prot:something
>
> > So you could just turn the existing conninfo syntax into a URI by doing
> > something like
>
> > postgresql:dbname=foo%20hostname=bar
>
> True, but the need for those %20's is annoying. I tend to agree with
> the suggestion that adopting the JDBC syntax would be the way to go,
> assuming that we can use it 100%-as-is (any incompatibility defeats
> the purpose).
Btw., there is also
$dbh = DBI->connect("dbi:Pg:dbname=$dbname", '', '', {AutoCommit => 0});
using a kind-of URI notation.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2011-04-06 17:34:31 | Re: Windows build issues |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2011-04-06 17:31:21 | Re: .ini support for .pgpass |