On Dec 12, 2006, at 3:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Right. Here's the patch I just knocked up, which seems to Just Work (tm) ;-)

The main objection I can see to this is that you'd get a fairly
unhelpful message if you intended a conninfo string and there was
anything wrong with your syntax (eg, misspelled keyword).  Maybe we
should go with the conn: bit, although really that doesn't seem any
less likely to collide with actual dbnames than the "does it contain
"="" idea.  Anyone have other ideas how to disambiguate?

I would personally prefer a real option over a prefix, i.e. -- dbconn="service=foo" though the inline conninfo string in place of the dbname would be ideal.

Perhaps like Tom suggests, if the value matches a conninfo regex (slightly more rigid than just containing an equals character) then we assume it is a conninfo string, but never try it as a dbname. If someone has a database named like a conninfo string (c'mon folks ;^) then they would need to pass it as explicitly an argument to '-d' or '--dbname', not as a bare argument.

This is not completely b/w compatible of course, but IMO the added convenience outweighs the incompatibility.


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to