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: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should psql support URI syntax?
Date: 2011-04-01 17:12:44
Message-ID: 1301677964.2324.13.camel@jd-desktop (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 12:04 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> > 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.
> The start of a URI defines the protocol so that the correct protocol
> handler can be used, like http: versus ftp:.  jdbc:postgresql: URIs
> define one protocol on the wire.  Are we talking about a separate
> protocol or the same one, in terms of what happens on the wire?  If
> the same one, I would tend to agree with JD that we can just use the
> existing URI format.  It seems to me that claiming a second protocol
> prefix for the same protocol would only be a good idea if there was
> a "marketing" benefit in doing so.

Good point then it would be something like:




Joshua D. Drake

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

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-04-01 17:17:26
Subject: Re: Comments on SQL/Med objects
Previous:From: Rajasekhar YakkaliDate: 2011-04-01 17:07:57
Subject: Re: Postgres 9.1 - Release Theme

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group