Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Should psql support URI syntax?

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>,"Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: "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 17:04:21
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"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 YakkaliDate: 2011-04-01 17:07:57
Subject: Re: Postgres 9.1 - Release Theme
Previous:From: Dan PortsDate: 2011-04-01 17:00:28
Subject: trivial patch: show SIREAD pids in pg_locks

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group