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

Re: Should psql support URI syntax?

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
Cc: Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Subject: Re: Should psql support URI syntax?
Date: 2011-04-01 08:34:26
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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
>>> different
>>> 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?

 Magnus Hagander

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gianni CiolliDate: 2011-04-01 10:44:23
Subject: Re: maximum digits for NUMERIC
Previous:From: Shigeru HANADADate: 2011-04-01 08:29:28
Subject: Re: Foreign table permissions and cloning

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group