Re: WIP: URI connection string support for libpq

Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of Tue Dec 13 23:31:32 +0200 2011:
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Peter van Hardenberg <pvh(at)pvh(dot)ca> wrote:
> > I'd like to make the controversial proposal that the URL prefix should
> > be "postgres:" instead of "postgresql:". Postgres is a widely accepted
> > nickname for the project, and is eminently more pronounceable. Once
> > the url is established it will be essentially impossible to change
> > later, but right now only a nearly insurmountable mailing list thread
> > prevents it.
>
> That, and the fact the JDBC is already doing it the other way. A
> reasonable compromise might be to accept either one. AIUI, part of
> what Alexander was aiming for here was to "unite the clans", so to
> speak, and it would seem a bit unfriendly (and certainly
> counter-productive as regards that goal) to pull the rug out from him
> by refusing to support that syntax over what is basically a
> supermassive bikeshed. However, being generous in what we accept
> won't cost anything, so why not?

(oops, misfired... now sending to the list)

I was going to put a remark about "adding to the soup" here, but realized that if this is actually committed, "the soup" is gonna be like this: libpq-supported syntax vs. everything else (think JDBC, or is there any other driver in the wild not using libpq?) This is in the ideal world, where every binding is updated to embrace the new syntax and users have updated all of their systems, etc.

Before that, why don't also accept "psql://", "pgsql://", "postgre://" and anything else? Or wait, aren't we adding to the soup again (or rather putting the soup right into libpq?)