On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 12:04 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > "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.
Good point then it would be something like: postgresql:ssl/ or pq:ssl/ ? Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers