Andrew Dunstan wrote: > 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. >
Here's the patch for what I think is the consensus position. If there's no objection I will apply this and document it. cheers andrew
dsnpatch
Description: Binary data
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
