From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jobin Augustine <jobinau(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Oleksandr Shulgin <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: libpq parameter parsing problem |
Date: | 2020-01-15 05:14:18 |
Message-ID: | 20200115051418.GH2243@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 08:54:41PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> My rationale is more since none of the other options have structural parts
> that require escaping, and rarely do the values themselves require
> escaping, that tossing that single example for a seldom-used option into
> the middle of the "usage examples" section doesn't really fit. What the
> example does is clarify a specific combination of factors, URI and
> "options", that require special attention. I'd rather bury that special
> case in the documentation for options then explain it in detail in the
> generic URI section - the structural elements involved are already
> mentioned in the options section and this just clarifies how they are
> written in the URI situation. Its not a strong opinion but I don't think
> adding it there while leaving the other common compound usage examples as a
> whole above is a misplacement - "options" is special and can very well have
> special treatment. It will be found by those that need to know about it.
Fair point. Now, replacing a special character applies to more than
"options", because it can be used for any values. For example:
postgresql:///mydb?host=localhost&application_name=hoge%20%3D%20foo
(This generates "hoge = foo" as application_name as you can guess.)
And the part of the docs for connection URIs describes only how to
percent-encode a path.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2020-01-15 08:35:08 | BUG #16206: Documentation for PGDATABASE libpq env var is misleading |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-01-15 04:42:57 | Re: BUG #16205: background worker "logical replication worker" (PID 25218) was terminated by signal 11: Segmentation |