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
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
