-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Restructuring dbnames #170
Conversation
can we merge this? |
want me to jump in? pinging @Michael-D-Johnson so he is aware of the conversation |
I wasn't able to test (didn't have access yet). Also, I thought we might want to use this opportunity to centralize the list of databases. |
More generally, why are we tracking the viable databases at all? Shouldn't the code just check the services file directly? If a database exists in the services file then try to connect, otherwise throw an exception? |
If we don't restrict database names at the parser level, this is what we get:
I'll add a bit more descriptive message. |
@mgckind ok, I think this is ready to merge and tag. |
Thanks, will take a look |
@mgckind we have a DELVE meeting on Friday. Do you think this new version could be live by then? |
yes, will do soon |
This PR is meant to allow access to
decade
. It originally sought to:decade
to the list of allowed databases.However, after some consideration, the restriction on database names was removed from the parser.