| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, List pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] psql commandline conninfo |
| Date: | 2006-12-12 23:37:26 |
| Message-ID: | 27599.1165966646@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Right. Here's the patch I just knocked up, which seems to Just Work (tm) ;-)
The main objection I can see to this is that you'd get a fairly
unhelpful message if you intended a conninfo string and there was
anything wrong with your syntax (eg, misspelled keyword). Maybe we
should go with the conn: bit, although really that doesn't seem any
less likely to collide with actual dbnames than the "does it contain
"="" idea. Anyone have other ideas how to disambiguate?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2006-12-12 23:38:38 | Re: Better management of mergejoinable operators |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-12-12 23:09:07 | Re: [HACKERS] psql commandline conninfo |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Casey Duncan | 2006-12-12 23:57:21 | Re: [HACKERS] psql commandline conninfo |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-12-12 23:09:07 | Re: [HACKERS] psql commandline conninfo |