On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Phil Sorber <p...@omniti.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Phil Sorber <p...@omniti.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Phil Sorber <p...@omniti.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Phil Sorber escribió: >>>>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Phil Sorber <p...@omniti.com> wrote: >>>>> >> OK, here is the patch that handles the connection string in dbname. >>>>> >> I'll post the other patch under a different posting because I am sure >>>>> >> it will get plenty of debate on it's own. >>>>> > >>>>> > I'm sorry, can you remind me what this does for us vs. the existing >>>>> > coding? >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> It's supposed to handle the connection string passed as dbname case to >>>>> be able to get the right output for host:port. >>>> >>>> Surely the idea is that you can also give it a postgres:// URI, right? >>> >>> Absolutely. >> >> Here is it. I like this approach more than the previous one, but I'd >> like some feedback.
The patch looks complicated to me. I was thinking that we can address the problem just by using PQconninfoParse() and PQconndefaults() like uri-regress.c does. The patch should be very simple. Why do we need so complicated code? Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
