Tom Lane wrote:
> "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net> 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
