Re: Should psql support URI syntax?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Adrian von Bidder <avbidder(at)fortytwo(dot)ch>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should psql support URI syntax?
Date: 2011-04-06 17:33:02
Message-ID: 1302111182.3238.14.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On sön, 2011-04-03 at 12:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Well, there isn't any requirement that URIs be
>
> > prot://hostname:port/something
>
> > They just have to be
>
> > prot:something
>
> > So you could just turn the existing conninfo syntax into a URI by doing
> > something like
>
> > postgresql:dbname=foo%20hostname=bar
>
> True, but the need for those %20's is annoying. I tend to agree with
> the suggestion that adopting the JDBC syntax would be the way to go,
> assuming that we can use it 100%-as-is (any incompatibility defeats
> the purpose).

Btw., there is also

$dbh = DBI->connect("dbi:Pg:dbname=$dbname", '', '', {AutoCommit => 0});

using a kind-of URI notation.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2011-04-06 17:34:31 Re: Windows build issues
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2011-04-06 17:31:21 Re: .ini support for .pgpass