Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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 second the idea to have libpq interpret a database name with "=" in
it as a connection parameter string.
The "conn:" seems artificial and difficult to remember to me.
As to the problem of cryptic error messages from psql, can't we improve
libpq's error response if it gets a database name that causes problems
when parsed as a connection parameter string? That would take care of
that.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe