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

Re: Should psql support URI syntax?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Adrian von Bidder <avbidder(at)fortytwo(dot)ch>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should psql support URI syntax?
Date: 2011-04-03 16:41:56
Message-ID: 15165.1301848916@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

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

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