Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue nov 24 10:35:36 -0300 2011: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Alexander Shulgin > <a...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > > > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of Thu Nov 24 13:57:17 +0200 2011: > >> > >> I think it would be really weird not to support user:pw@host:port. You > >> can presumably also support the JDBC style for backward compatibility, but > >> I don't think we should adopt that syntax as project standard. > > > > Well, I don't believe JDBC syntax is ideal either, but I don't recall any > > better option proposed in the original discussion: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-03/msg01945.php > > > > Do you suggest that we should reconsider? > > I guess my feeling is that if we're going to have URLs, we ought to > try to adhere to the same conventions that are used for pretty much > every other service that supports URLs. user:pw@host:port is widely > supported by multiple protocols, so I think we would need a very good > reason to decide to go off in a completely different direction. It > would be nice to be compatible with whatever JDBC does (link?) but I'm > not prepared to put that ahead of general good design.
Apparently there's no standard: http://www.petefreitag.com/articles/jdbc_urls/ Supporting the usual user:pw@host convention, _in addition to_ what our own JDBC driver already supports, seems reasonable to me. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
