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

Re: Notes on implementing URI syntax for libpq

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Alexander Shulgin <ash(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Notes on implementing URI syntax for libpq
Date: 2011-11-24 14:02:38
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> 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:


Robert Haas
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Florian WeimerDate: 2011-11-24 14:04:06
Subject: Re: Wire protocol: type-specific opt-in to binary format
Previous:From: Alexander ShulginDate: 2011-11-24 14:02:04
Subject: Re: Notes on implementing URI syntax for libpq

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