Tom Lane wrote: >> We change libpq from time to time. Besides, how many DBs are there that >> match the name pattern /^conn:.*=/ ? My guess is mighty few. So I don't >> expect lots of surprise. > > Um, but how many DB names have an "=" in them at all? > > Basically what this proposal is about is migrating from separated > dbname/user/host/port/etc parameters to a unified conninfo parameter. > That seems to me like a good long-term objective, and so I'm willing > to break a few eggs on the way to the omelet, as long as we're not > breaking any very likely usages. > > So: who here has a database with "=" in the name? And hands up if > you've got a database whose name begins with "conn:"? > > I'm betting zero response rate on both of those, so see no reason to > contort the long-term definition for a very marginal difference in > the extent of backwards compatibility ...
I second the idea to have libpq interpret a database name with "=" in it as a connection parameter string. The "conn:" seems artificial and difficult to remember to me. As to the problem of cryptic error messages from psql, can't we improve libpq's error response if it gets a database name that causes problems when parsed as a connection parameter string? That would take care of that. Yours, Laurenz Albe ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
