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.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to