From: | Alexander Shulgin <ash(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Notes on implementing URI syntax for libpq |
Date: | 2011-11-24 14:44:39 |
Message-ID: | 1322145645-sup-9618@moon |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of Thu Nov 24 16:02:38 +0200 2011:
>
> > So, in that light, do we still think that letting the user specify a
> > service name in the URI makes sense? (My personal opinion is yes).
>
> service is just a connection parameter, so if we choose a URL format
> that allows any connection parameter to be specified, this falls out
> naturally, without any additional work. And if we don't choose such a
> URL format, we are, in my humble opinion, crazy.
The patch draft I have uses that format, yes: so any keyword libqp recognizes can be given in form of param=value URI query parameter.
> e.g. if we used the format suggested in my previous email, this would
> just boil down to:
>
> postgresql:///?service=foo
Oh, well, that would make sense. It also appeared to me that we should deny overriding host, port and dbname by the query parameters to prevent confusion, e.g:
postgresql://host:port/dbname?host=otherhost&port=otherport&dbname=otherdb
--
Alex
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-11-24 14:47:46 | Re: pg_upgrade relation OID mismatches |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-11-24 14:41:45 | Re: Notes on implementing URI syntax for libpq |