| From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Should psql support URI syntax? |
| Date: | 2011-04-01 08:24:00 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikgTzZTBuQKPABRzbjFZVoGW+72bgg8TbEg4gaN@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> I would think it would be purely syntatic sugar really, which does
>> incorporate a familiar interface for those who are working in
>> different
>> worlds (.Net/Drupal/JAVA) etc...
>
> I wouldn't mind having something more standard supported; I'm always looking up the conninfo for the options I don't use frequently.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the options you have to look up won't
be any more obvious (or standardized) in a URI connection string.
That said, I do support adding this in the future, if only to keep up
with the Jones'.
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shigeru HANADA | 2011-04-01 08:29:28 | Re: Foreign table permissions and cloning |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2011-04-01 07:52:22 | Re: maximum digits for NUMERIC |