Tom Lane wrote:
"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
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'm not sure -hackers is the most representative group to poll regarding dbnames in use ...

Anyway, if I understand your current position, the only change needed to my current patch would be that if we fail to parse a dbname parameter that contains an = we simply fail at that point, rather than retrying it as a straight database name.

I'm OK with that.

cheers

andrew


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

              http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

Reply via email to