* Alvaro Herrera: > Excerpts from Florian Weimer's message of jue nov 24 11:31:29 -0300 2011: >> >> * Alvaro Herrera: >> >> > I think we should just propose something that will not work in JDBC. >> >> I'm not sure if this is a good idea. 8-) >> >> I plan to add UNIX Domain socket support to the JDBC driver. >> Eventually, the JDK will expose UNIX Domain sockets to Java code, too >> (they are already used internally for management functions). > > Well, in that case, the JDBC could simply adopt whatever syntax that > libpq ends up adopting. I just meant "something that will not work in > JDBC *right now*" (i.e. with no local socket support).
Ah, okay, your proposal looked like something which couldn't work with JDBC *at all* because of invalid URI syntax (but admittedly, I haven't checked that yet). -- Florian Weimer <fwei...@bfk.de> BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
