On 04/01/2011 04:34 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:24, Dave Page<dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Joshua Berkus<josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> I would think it would be purely syntatic sugar really, which does
>>>> incorporate a familiar interface for those who are working in
>>>> worlds (.Net/Drupal/JAVA) etc...
>>> I wouldn't mind having something more standard supported; I'm always looking up the conninfo for the options I don't use frequently.
>> I have a sneaking suspicion that the options you have to look up won't
>> be any more obvious (or standardized) in a URI connection string.
>> That said, I do support adding this in the future, if only to keep up
>> with the Jones'.
> So are the ones out there *already* even compatible, before we start
> adding our own? For example, for JDBC I beleive it has to be
> jdbc:postgresql://blahblah... Even if you can say the jdbc part is
> protocol specific, the example quoted by JD had pgsql://. How many
> other combinations can we find already out in the wild, and how do we
> pick which one to use in this case?
Of course they aren't compatible. So we solve that by just adding to the
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Thom Brown||Date: 2011-04-01 12:13:54|
|Subject: Re: Foreign table permissions and cloning|
|Previous:||From: Gianni Ciolli||Date: 2011-04-01 12:08:51|
|Subject: Re: Transforming IN (...) to ORs, volatility|