On 10/27/2015 01:42 AM, Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Christopher Browne <cbbro...@gmail.com > <mailto:cbbro...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On 26 October 2015 at 16:25, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net > <mailto:pete...@gmx.net>> wrote: > > On 10/14/15 6:41 AM, Victor Wagner wrote: > > 1. It is allowed to specify several hosts in the connect string, > either > > in URL-style (separated by comma) or in param=value form (several > host > > parameters). > > I'm not fond of having URLs that are not valid URLs according to the > applicable standards. Because then they can't be parsed or > composed by > standard libraries. > > 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. > > I think you should just accept multiple URLs. > > > I'd give a "+1" on this... > > As an area of new behaviour, I don't see a big problem with declining to > support every wee bit of libpq configuration, and instead requiring the > use of URLs. > > Trying to put "multiplicities" into each parameter (and then considering > it at the pg_service level, too) is WAY more complicated, and for a > feature where it seems to me that it is pretty reasonable to have a > series of fully qualified URLs. > > Specifying several URLs should be easier to understand, easier to > test, easier to code, and easier to keep from blowing up badly. > > > Setting aside all other concerns, have a +1 from me on that too.
I'm good with this. +1 -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
