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).

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: Should psql support URI syntax? at 2011-04-03 09:32:34 from Peter Eisentraut

Responses

• Re: Should psql support URI syntax? at 2011-04-06 17:33:02 from Peter Eisentraut

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Julia Jacobson	Date: 2011-04-03 17:07:01
	Subject: Compiling a static libpq
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2011-04-03 16:38:37
	Subject: Re: FDW state from plan time