On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> Excerpts from Martijn van Oosterhout's message of jue nov 24 04:40:42 -0300 2011:
>> How about the "service" option, that's a nice way of handling
>> non-default socket options.
> What about it? Are you suggesting we should support some way to specify
> a service name in the URI?
> If so, consider this: if you set up a pg_service.conf file, and then
> pass around a URI that specifies a service, no one else can use the URI
> until you also pass around the service file.
> So, in that light, do we still think that letting the user specify a
> service name in the URI makes sense? (My personal opinion is yes).
service is just a connection parameter, so if we choose a URL format
that allows any connection parameter to be specified, this falls out
naturally, without any additional work. And if we don't choose such a
URL format, we are, in my humble opinion, crazy.
e.g. if we used the format suggested in my previous email, this would
just boil down to:
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Florian Weimer||Date: 2011-11-24 14:04:06|
|Subject: Re: Wire protocol: type-specific opt-in to binary format|
|Previous:||From: Alexander Shulgin||Date: 2011-11-24 14:02:04|
|Subject: Re: Notes on implementing URI syntax for libpq|