On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:29:09AM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote: > On 30 October 2015 at 09:26, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > On 10/28/15 4:18 AM, Victor Wagner wrote: > > >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 16:25:57 -0400 > > >> Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Also, this assumes that all the components other than host and port > > >>> are the same. Earlier there was a discussion about why the ports > > >>> would ever need to be different. Well, why can't the database names > > >>> be different? I could have use for that. > > >> > > >> Because of way postgresql replication is implemented. > > > > > > There are multiple types of PostgreSQL replication, and there will be > > > others in the future. > > > > That's true, but doesn't allowing every parameter to be multiply > > specified greatly increase the implementation complexity for a pretty > > marginal benefit? I think host and IP would hit 98% of the use cases > > here. > > I think it makes the feature WORSE. I am getting more and more convinced > that the Correct Solution is for this feature to be handled by submitting > multiple URIs, and my argument isn't even based on any aspects of > implementation complexity. > > Take as example the case where I have two database servers I want to > be considered. > > a) Database with URI > postgresql://cbbro...@server-a.example.info:5432/my-first-database > > b) Database with URL > postgresql://rob...@server-b.example.info:7032/my-second-database > > With all the "per-variable multiplicities", this would turn into a > combinatorial explosion of combinations, some 2^4, or 16 possible servers, > some of which likely don't exist, and others of which aren't proper (e.g. - > trying to connect to database a) using robert's credentials). > > Possibly some of those combinations are outright improper.
Let's say that the chances of their all both existing and being proper are close enough to zero not to matter. > Seems like Best Goodness for Postgres to do something analogous... > postgresql://cbbro...@server-a.example.info:5432/my-first-database > postgresql://rob...@server-b.example.info:7032/my-second-database Yes. > Is it a bit long? Sure. But it is unambiguous, and requires *only* > whitespace parsing to separate the URIs. I'd think it fine for Postgres to > support this via multiple "-d" options; that would be about as good. Indeed. Is there any risk of losing ordering information in the standard command line processing libraries? > That can cover 100% of cases, and I don't see it needing to interact > specially with odd bits such as "was that a replication slot?" You can > always choose to shoot yourself in the foot, but this doesn't spin the > roulette for you... An evocative image, if not a pretty one. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
