Re: Should psql support URI syntax?
| От | Andrew Dunstan |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Should psql support URI syntax? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 4D95C16E.2060108@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Should psql support URI syntax? (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Should psql support URI syntax?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/01/2011 04:34 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:24, Dave Page<dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Joshua Berkus<josh@agliodbs.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'tuse 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 soup! cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: