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

Re: Should psql support URI syntax?

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should psql support URI syntax?
Date: 2011-04-01 16:43:47
Message-ID: 1301676227.2324.1.camel@jd-desktop (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 08:13 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:

> >> 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?
> >
> Of course they aren't compatible. So we solve that by just adding to the 
> soup!

Well I would argue that if compatibility (as opposed to familiarity) is
our goal, we need to focus on one and only one syntax, JDBC. It doesn't
matter our particular bent, JDBC is the one that is in the most use.

If we can agree on syntax we want to support, I would put efforts into
working a patch.


-- Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering |

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dan PortsDate: 2011-04-01 17:00:28
Subject: trivial patch: show SIREAD pids in pg_locks
Previous:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2011-04-01 16:43:14
Subject: Re: Process local hint bit cache

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group