On 10/27/2015 01:42 AM, Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@gmail.com
> <mailto:cbbrowne@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> On 26 October 2015 at 16:25, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net
> <mailto:peter_e@gmx.net>> wrote:
>
> On 10/14/15 6:41 AM, Victor Wagner wrote:
> > 1. It is allowed to specify several hosts in the connect string, either
> > in URL-style (separated by comma) or in param=value form (several host
> > parameters).
>
> I'm not fond of having URLs that are not valid URLs according to the
> applicable standards. Because then they can't be parsed or
> composed by
> standard libraries.
>
> Also, this assumes that all the components other than host and
> port are
> the same. Earlier there was a discussion about why the ports
> would ever
> need to be different. Well, why can't the database names be
> different?
> I could have use for that.
>
> I think you should just accept multiple URLs.
>
>
> I'd give a "+1" on this...
>
> As an area of new behaviour, I don't see a big problem with declining to
> support every wee bit of libpq configuration, and instead requiring the
> use of URLs.
>
> Trying to put "multiplicities" into each parameter (and then considering
> it at the pg_service level, too) is WAY more complicated, and for a
> feature where it seems to me that it is pretty reasonable to have a
> series of fully qualified URLs.
>
> Specifying several URLs should be easier to understand, easier to
> test, easier to code, and easier to keep from blowing up badly.
>
>
> Setting aside all other concerns, have a +1 from me on that too.
I'm good with this. +1
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
