Re: Inconsistency in libpq connection parameters, and extension thereof

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>>> However, not throwing errors on the URL syntax should be considered a
>>>> bug, I think.
>>>
>>> +1.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Here's a patch that just makes the thing an error.  Of course we could
>> revert it if it makes the URI feature otherwise unusable...but I don't
>> see a huge and terrible blocker ATM.  A major question mark for me any
>> extra stuff in JDBC URLs.
>
> It looks like the answer is "yes".
>
> http://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/head/connect.html#connection-parameters
>
> ...but I'm inclined to think we should make this change anyway.  If
> JDBC used libpq, then it might be nice to let JDBC parse out bits of
> the URL and then pass the whole thing, unmodified, through to libpq,
> without having libpq spit up.  But it doesn't.  And even if someone
> were inclined to try to do something of that type, the warnings we're
> omitting now would presumably discourage them.
>
> Thoughts?

I think we *have* to make the change for regular parameters, for
security reasons.

What we do with "prefixed parameters" can be debated... But we'll have
to pass those to the server anyway for validation, so it might be an
uninteresting case.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/