On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:24, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
> 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
>>> 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'.
So are the ones out there *already* even compatible, before we start
adding our own? For example, for JDBC I beleive it has to be
jdbc:postgresql://blahblah... Even if you can say the jdbc part is
protocol specific, the example quoted by JD had pgsql://. How many
other combinations can we find already out in the wild, and how do we
pick which one to use in this case?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Gianni Ciolli||Date: 2011-04-01 10:44:23|
|Subject: Re: maximum digits for NUMERIC|
|Previous:||From: Shigeru HANADA||Date: 2011-04-01 08:29:28|
|Subject: Re: Foreign table permissions and cloning|