Re: WIP: URI connection string support for libpq

On 12/13/2011 04:54 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> On 12/13/2011 05:45 PM, Alexander Shulgin wrote:
>> 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?)
>
> There are multiple URI samples within PostgreSQL drivers in the field,
> here are two I know of what I believe to be a larger number of samples
> that all match in this regard:
>
> http://sequel.rubyforge.org/rdoc/files/doc/opening_databases_rdoc.html
> http://www.rmunn.com/sqlalchemy-tutorial/tutorial.html
>
> These two are using "postgres". One of the hopes in adding URI support
> was to make it possible for the libpq spec to look similar to the ones
> already floating around, so that they'd all converge. Using a different
> prefix than the most popular ones have already adopted isn't a good way
> to start that. Now, whenever the URI discussion wanders off into copying
> the JDBC driver I wonder again why that's relevant.

Because the use of Java/JDBC dwarfs both of your examples combined.
Don't get me wrong, I love Python (everyone knows this) but in terms of
where the work is being done it is still in Java for the most part, by
far. That said, I am not really arguing against your other points except
to answer your question.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
The PostgreSQL Conference - http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
@cmdpromptinc - @postgresconf - 509-416-6579