On 04/01/2011 04:34 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
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?
Of course they aren't compatible. So we solve that by just adding to the
soup!
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers