Excerpts from Daniel Farina's message of Fri Dec 09 23:04:26 +0200 2011:
>
> I guess if I move the parenthetical grouping of logic around, what you
> are probably intending to say is "everyone except this one ecosystem
> does the normal thing, so we have an opportunity to Unite The Clans,
> by ab
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 3:03 AM, Alexander Shulgin
wrote:
> The JDBC driver is special in that it intentionally does not use libpq.
> Given every other binding (think Ruby, Python, Perl, Tcl, etc.) does use
> libpq, it makes perfect sense to me to make the syntax compatible with JDBC.
I am wit
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 6:03 AM, Alexander Shulgin
wrote:
> See above. The hope is that URIs will be compatible sans the driver-specific
> extra query parameters which might be not recognized by either party.
Yeah. I am not that concerned with being stupidity-compatible with
anyone else ... bu
Excerpts from Daniel Farina's message of Mon Dec 05 11:56:19 +0200 2011:
>
> I think the current direction is fine, although as Robert Haas has
> said, I am not really at all inclined to view JDBC compatibility as
> any kind of a plus. JDBC URLs are weird, and do the drivers actually
> link libp
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Alexander Shulgin
wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Alexander Shulgin's message of Sat Nov 26 22:07:21 +0200 2011:
>>
>> So how about this:
>>
>> postgresql:ssl://user:pw@host:port/dbname?sslmode=...
>>
>> The "postgresql:ssl://" designator would assume "sslmode=require"
Excerpts from Alexander Shulgin's message of Sat Nov 26 22:07:21 +0200 2011:
>
> So how about this:
>
> postgresql:ssl://user:pw@host:port/dbname?sslmode=...
>
> The "postgresql:ssl://" designator would assume "sslmode=require", if not
> overriden in extra parameters and "postgresql://" woul
Excerpts from Alexander Shulgin's message of Sat Nov 26 21:46:32 +0200 2011:
>
> I would also think that if one is to specify the password in the URI, and the
> password happen to contain the @-sign (e.g. "!@#$%^",) it should be
> percent-encoded, like:
>
> postgresql://user:!%40#$%^@/
Actua
Excerpts from Greg Smith's message of Mon Nov 28 10:08:42 +0200 2011:
>
> On 11/24/2011 05:21 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > A coworker also suggested using a different designator:
> >
> > postgresqli:///path/to/socket:5433/database
> > postgresqli://:5433/database
>
> This is not unprecedented.
On 11/24/2011 05:21 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
A coworker also suggested using a different designator:
postgresqli:///path/to/socket:5433/database
postgresqli://:5433/database
This is not unprecedented. An example is how CUPS handles this problem
when connecting printers using URIs:
http://
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of Thu Nov 24 13:57:17 +0200 2011:
>
> I think it would be really weird not to support user:pw@host:port. You can
> presumably also support the JDBC style for backward compatibility, but I
> don't think we should adopt that syntax as project standard.
By th
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of Thu Nov 24 15:59:08 +0200 2011:
>
> I think we could do something like:
>
> postgresql://user:pw@host:port/database?param1=val1¶m2=val2¶m3=val3&...
I wonder if this should be allowed syntax (i.e. specify a user, but connect
locally, so leave 'host' to be
Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of Thu Nov 24 22:05:09 +0200 2011:
>
> On tor, 2011-11-24 at 15:43 +0200, Alexander Shulgin wrote:
> > Huh? The service definitions are read from a local pg_service.conf,
> > and are specified by setting PGSERVICE (and PGSERVICEFILE) environment
> > varia
On tor, 2011-11-24 at 15:43 +0200, Alexander Shulgin wrote:
> Huh? The service definitions are read from a local pg_service.conf,
> and are specified by setting PGSERVICE (and PGSERVICEFILE) environment
> variables, no?
>
> What would you do with such URI if you need to other people to connect
>
On tor, 2011-11-24 at 09:02 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> e.g. if we used the format suggested in my previous email, this would
> just boil down to:
>
> postgresql:///?service=foo
More correct would be
postgresql:?service=foo
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_scheme for some inspiration.
--
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of Thu Nov 24 17:02:13 +0200 2011:
>
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Alexander Shulgin
> wrote:
> >> Another idea is to use local:/dir/name for UNIX domain socket instead of
> >> hostname:port, like it's displayed in the psql prompt.
> >
> > So the whole t
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Alexander Shulgin
wrote:
>> Another idea is to use local:/dir/name for UNIX domain socket instead of
>> hostname:port, like it's displayed in the psql prompt.
>
> So the whole thing would look like this:
>
> postgresql://local:/dir/name/dbname?param1=val1&...
>
>
* Alvaro Herrera:
> Excerpts from Florian Weimer's message of jue nov 24 11:31:29 -0300 2011:
>>
>> * Alvaro Herrera:
>>
>> > I think we should just propose something that will not work in JDBC.
>>
>> I'm not sure if this is a good idea. 8-)
>>
>> I plan to add UNIX Domain socket support to th
Excerpts from Florian Weimer's message of Thu Nov 24 16:31:29 +0200 2011:
>
> I plan to add UNIX Domain socket support to the JDBC driver.
> Eventually, the JDK will expose UNIX Domain sockets to Java code, too
> (they are already used internally for management functions).
Do you maybe plan to s
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of Thu Nov 24 16:02:38 +0200 2011:
>
> > So, in that light, do we still think that letting the user specify a
> > service name in the URI makes sense? (My personal opinion is yes).
>
> service is just a connection parameter, so if we choose a URL format
> tha
Excerpts from Florian Weimer's message of jue nov 24 11:31:29 -0300 2011:
>
> * Alvaro Herrera:
>
> > I think we should just propose something that will not work in JDBC.
>
> I'm not sure if this is a good idea. 8-)
>
> I plan to add UNIX Domain socket support to the JDBC driver.
> Eventually,
Excerpts from Alexey Klyukin's message of Thu Nov 24 10:22:21 +0200 2011:
>
> Another idea is to use local:/dir/name for UNIX domain socket instead of
> hostname:port, like it's displayed in the psql prompt.
So the whole thing would look like this:
postgresql://local:/dir/name/dbname?param1=
* Alvaro Herrera:
> I think we should just propose something that will not work in JDBC.
I'm not sure if this is a good idea. 8-)
I plan to add UNIX Domain socket support to the JDBC driver.
Eventually, the JDK will expose UNIX Domain sockets to Java code, too
(they are already used internally f
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Excerpts from Martijn van Oosterhout's message of jue nov 24 04:40:42 -0300
> 2011:
>
>> How about the "service" option, that's a nice way of handling
>> non-default socket options.
>
> What about it? Are you suggesting we should support s
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of Thu Nov 24 15:59:08 +0200 2011:
>
> Well, based on that document, I think that trying to be bug-compatible
> with the JDBC syntax is a, erm, doomed effort. I mean, what are you
> going to do with things like loglevel or logUnclosedConnections that
> change
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of jue nov 24 10:21:49 -0300 2011:
> A coworker also suggested using a different designator:
>
> postgresqli:///path/to/socket:5433/database
> postgresqli://:5433/database
I forgot to mention: this "i" thing comes from LDAP. Apparently you can
use "ldapi:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Alexander Shulgin
wrote:
> What JDBC supports is rather weird and far from being ideal:
> http://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/head/connect.html
>
> The problem with supporting multiple syntaxes, IMO is that it makes libpq
> compatible in only one direction:
Excerpts from Martijn van Oosterhout's message of jue nov 24 04:40:42 -0300
2011:
> How about the "service" option, that's a nice way of handling
> non-default socket options.
What about it? Are you suggesting we should support some way to specify
a service name in the URI?
If so, consider th
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue nov 24 10:35:36 -0300 2011:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Alexander Shulgin
> wrote:
> >
> > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of Thu Nov 24 13:57:17 +0200 2011:
> >>
> >> I think it would be really weird not to support user:pw@host:port. You
>
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of Thu Nov 24 15:35:36 +0200 2011:
>
> > Do you suggest that we should reconsider?
>
> I guess my feeling is that if we're going to have URLs, we ought to
> try to adhere to the same conventions that are used for pretty much
> every other service that supports
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of Thu Nov 24 15:21:49 +0200 2011:
>
> I think the question is allowing the URI to specify a service.
Huh? The service definitions are read from a local pg_service.conf, and are
specified by setting PGSERVICE (and PGSERVICEFILE) environment variables, no?
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Alexander Shulgin
wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of Thu Nov 24 13:57:17 +0200 2011:
>>
>> I think it would be really weird not to support user:pw@host:port. You can
>> presumably also support the JDBC style for backward compatibility, but I
>> do
Excerpts from Alexander Shulgin's message of jue nov 24 05:58:57 -0300 2011:
> Excerpts from Martijn van Oosterhout's message of Thu Nov 24 09:40:42 +0200
> 2011:
> > Which does raise the valid question of how to represent that in URI
> > syntax. SQLAlchemy (for example) doesn't try with it's U
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of Thu Nov 24 13:57:17 +0200 2011:
>
> I think it would be really weird not to support user:pw@host:port. You can
> presumably also support the JDBC style for backward compatibility, but I
> don't think we should adopt that syntax as project standard.
Well,
On Nov 24, 2011, at 1:57 AM, Alexander Shulgin wrote:
> While it is really tempting to provide support for all that fancy stuff (or
> at least support "user:password@host" part instead of the ugly
> "?user=&password=") this will make psql URIs backward-incompatible with the
> JDBC syntax, which
Excerpts from Martijn van Oosterhout's message of Thu Nov 24 09:40:42 +0200
2011:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 08:59:56AM +0200, Alexander Shulgin wrote:
> > > How would you specifiy a local port/UNIX domain socket?
> >
> > Missed that in my previous reply.
> >
> > If host part of the URI points t
On Nov 24, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 08:59:56AM +0200, Alexander Shulgin wrote:
>>> How would you specifiy a local port/UNIX domain socket?
>>
>> Missed that in my previous reply.
>>
>> If host part of the URI points to localhost, the UNIX domain
2011/11/24 Alexander Shulgin
>
> Excerpts from Dmitriy Igrishin's message of Thu Nov 24 09:19:02 +0200 2011:
> >
> > > If host part of the URI points to localhost, the UNIX domain socket
> would
> > > be considered by libpq just as if you would pass "-h localhost -p
> 5433".
> > >
> > But what if
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 08:59:56AM +0200, Alexander Shulgin wrote:
> > How would you specifiy a local port/UNIX domain socket?
>
> Missed that in my previous reply.
>
> If host part of the URI points to localhost, the UNIX domain socket would be
> considered by libpq just as if you would pass "-
Excerpts from Dmitriy Igrishin's message of Thu Nov 24 09:19:02 +0200 2011:
>
> > If host part of the URI points to localhost, the UNIX domain socket would
> > be considered by libpq just as if you would pass "-h localhost -p 5433".
> >
> But what if the user wants to connect exactly via socket o
Hey Alexander,
2011/11/24 Alexander Shulgin
>
> Excerpts from Florian Weimer's message of Wed Nov 23 13:04:47 +0200 2011:
> >
> > * Alexander Shulgin:
> >
> > > This, in my opinion, is very similar to what we would like to achieve
> with the URI syntax, so the above could also be specified using
Excerpts from Florian Weimer's message of Wed Nov 23 13:04:47 +0200 2011:
>
> * Alexander Shulgin:
>
> > This, in my opinion, is very similar to what we would like to achieve with
> > the URI syntax, so the above could also be specified using a URI parameter
> > like this:
> >
> > psql -d po
Excerpts from Florian Weimer's message of Wed Nov 23 13:04:47 +0200 2011:
>
> * Alexander Shulgin:
>
> > This, in my opinion, is very similar to what we would like to achieve with
> > the URI syntax, so the above could also be specified using a URI parameter
> > like this:
> >
> > psql -d po
* Alexander Shulgin:
> This, in my opinion, is very similar to what we would like to achieve with
> the URI syntax, so the above could also be specified using a URI parameter
> like this:
>
> psql -d postgresql://example.net:5433/mydb
How would you specifiy a local port/UNIX domain socket?
W
> It was proposed a while ago for libpq to support URI syntax for specifying
> the connection information:
> ...
> Now we're going to actually implement this.
Do you know that we had this feature (more or less) in libpq for years but it
was removed quite a while ago. It should still be there in t
Hello,
It was proposed a while ago for libpq to support URI syntax for specifying the
connection information:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1302114698.23164.17.camel@jd-desktop
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-07/msg01144.php
It appears to me that the consensus
45 matches
Mail list logo
