On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Phil Sorber <p...@omniti.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Phil Sorber <p...@omniti.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Phil Sorber <p...@omniti.com> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Phil Sorber escribió: >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Phil Sorber <p...@omniti.com> wrote: >>>>>> >> OK, here is the patch that handles the connection string in dbname. >>>>>> >> I'll post the other patch under a different posting because I am sure >>>>>> >> it will get plenty of debate on it's own. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I'm sorry, can you remind me what this does for us vs. the existing >>>>>> > coding? >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> It's supposed to handle the connection string passed as dbname case to >>>>>> be able to get the right output for host:port. >>>>> >>>>> Surely the idea is that you can also give it a postgres:// URI, right? >>>> >>>> Absolutely. >>> >>> Here is it. I like this approach more than the previous one, but I'd >>> like some feedback. > > The patch looks complicated to me. I was thinking that we can address > the problem > just by using PQconninfoParse() and PQconndefaults() like uri-regress.c does. > The patch should be very simple. Why do we need so complicated code?
Did you like the previous version better? http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cadakt-hnb3ohcpkr+pcg1c_bjrsb7j__bpv+-jrjs5opjr2...@mail.gmail.com > > Regards, > > -- > Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
