On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Alexander Shulgin
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of Thu Nov 24 13:57:17 +0200 2011:
>> I think it would be really weird not to support user:pw(at)host:port. You can presumably also support the JDBC style for backward compatibility, but I don't think we should adopt that syntax as project standard.
> Well, I don't believe JDBC syntax is ideal either, but I don't recall any better option proposed in the original discussion: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-03/msg01945.php
> Do you suggest that we should reconsider?
I guess my feeling is that if we're going to have URLs, we ought to
try to adhere to the same conventions that are used for pretty much
every other service that supports URLs. user:pw(at)host:port is widely
supported by multiple protocols, so I think we would need a very good
reason to decide to go off in a completely different direction. It
would be nice to be compatible with whatever JDBC does (link?) but I'm
not prepared to put that ahead of general good design.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-11-24 13:40:30|
|Subject: Re: Making TEXT NUL-transparent|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-11-24 13:30:23|
|Subject: Re: Storing hot members of PGPROC out of the band|