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

Re: Notes on implementing URI syntax for libpq

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alexander Shulgin <ash(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Notes on implementing URI syntax for libpq
Date: 2011-11-24 13:35:36
Message-ID: CA+TgmoY5RgT4prK4sGpba-FLO5PMAPi8jvgv7CNBW6cQLA_3gg@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Alexander Shulgin
<ash(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 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.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-11-24 13:40:30
Subject: Re: Making TEXT NUL-transparent
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-11-24 13:30:23
Subject: Re: Storing hot members of PGPROC out of the band

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