"Joshua D. Drake" <j...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Well I would argue that if compatibility (as opposed to > familiarity) is our goal, we need to focus on one and only one > syntax, JDBC. It doesn't matter our particular bent, JDBC is the > one that is in the most use. The start of a URI defines the protocol so that the correct protocol handler can be used, like http: versus ftp:. jdbc:postgresql: URIs define one protocol on the wire. Are we talking about a separate protocol or the same one, in terms of what happens on the wire? If the same one, I would tend to agree with JD that we can just use the existing URI format. It seems to me that claiming a second protocol prefix for the same protocol would only be a good idea if there was a "marketing" benefit in doing so. If we do decide it's worth getting some non-jdbc-based protocol identifier, I would suggest pq: if it's not taken, as we call the library for using it libpq. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
