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.
By the way, if we're already considering this, what about special syntax for SSL, instead of the JDBC's "&ssl=true" thingy? Given that the default sslmode is "prefer" I assume libpq tries SSL first, then falls back to plain text if that's not available. To me, it looks much more natural if the fact that SSL is/should be used is stated early in the URI syntax, like: "https://";, "svn+ssh://", etc., rather than in the query parameters (if the parameters were to be passed to remote service to process, like it's done with HTTP[S], this would not make any sense at all.) But given that sslmode can currently be either of: "disable", "allow", "prefer", "require", "verify-ca" or "verify-full" (and who knows if any new allowed mode could show up later,) allowing "&sslmode=whatever" makes sense. Note, that this is not the same as "&ssl=whatever". So how about this: postgresql:ssl://user:pw@host:port/dbname?sslmode=... The "postgresql:ssl://" designator would assume "sslmode=require", if not overriden in extra parameters and "postgresql://" would imply "sslmode=prefer". And to disable SSL you would pick either designator and append "sslmode=disable". The JDBC's "ssl=true" will translate to "sslmode=require". If we can decide on this, we should also put reasonable effort into making JDBC support the same syntax. Thoughts? -- Alex -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
