On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:24, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Joshua Berkus <j...@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 use 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? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
