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

Re: [HACKERS] psql commandline conninfo

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, List pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] psql commandline conninfo
Date: 2006-12-12 23:37:26
Message-ID: 27599.1165966646@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Right. Here's the patch I just knocked up, which seems to Just Work (tm) ;-)

The main objection I can see to this is that you'd get a fairly
unhelpful message if you intended a conninfo string and there was
anything wrong with your syntax (eg, misspelled keyword).  Maybe we
should go with the conn: bit, although really that doesn't seem any
less likely to collide with actual dbnames than the "does it contain
"="" idea.  Anyone have other ideas how to disambiguate?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Michael GlaesemannDate: 2006-12-12 23:38:38
Subject: Re: Better management of mergejoinable operators
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2006-12-12 23:09:07
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] psql commandline conninfo

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Casey DuncanDate: 2006-12-12 23:57:21
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] psql commandline conninfo
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2006-12-12 23:09:07
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] psql commandline conninfo

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