Re: Should psql support URI syntax?
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Should psql support URI syntax? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | AANLkTikjA2iqLMiXMnKKAy=Md0=TQx5SDF3Nd6do=xs9@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Should psql support URI syntax? (Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Should psql support URI syntax?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
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't usefrequently. > > 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 Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: