"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.
If we do decide it's worth getting some non-jdbc-based protocol
identifier, I would suggest pq: if it's not taken, as we call the
library for using it libpq.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Rajasekhar Yakkali||Date: 2011-04-01 17:07:57|
|Subject: Re: Postgres 9.1 - Release Theme|
|Previous:||From: Dan Ports||Date: 2011-04-01 17:00:28|
|Subject: trivial patch: show SIREAD pids in pg_locks|