Re: psql commandline conninfo
| От | Casey Duncan |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: psql commandline conninfo |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | E80A0E32-6CD9-4979-8BFE-1D49DCBA10E0@pandora.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: psql commandline conninfo (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: psql commandline conninfo
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Dec 12, 2006, at 3:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: >> Right. Here's the patch I just knocked up, which seems to Just >> Work (tm) ;-) > > The main objection I can see to this is that you'd get a fairly > unhelpful message if you intended a conninfo string and there was > anything wrong with your syntax (eg, misspelled keyword). Maybe we > should go with the conn: bit, although really that doesn't seem any > less likely to collide with actual dbnames than the "does it contain > "="" idea. Anyone have other ideas how to disambiguate? I would personally prefer a real option over a prefix, i.e. -- dbconn="service=foo" though the inline conninfo string in place of the dbname would be ideal. Perhaps like Tom suggests, if the value matches a conninfo regex (slightly more rigid than just containing an equals character) then we assume it is a conninfo string, but never try it as a dbname. If someone has a database named like a conninfo string (c'mon folks ;^) then they would need to pass it as explicitly an argument to '-d' or '--dbname', not as a bare argument. This is not completely b/w compatible of course, but IMO the added convenience outweighs the incompatibility. -Casey
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: