From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | hans(at)matfyz(dot)cz |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #12725: psql: no interpretation of option -F |
Date: | 2015-02-02 15:24:18 |
Message-ID: | 16013.1422890658@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
hans(at)matfyz(dot)cz writes:
> It seems that that the command line parameter of the -F option is not
> interpreted for escape sequences. Please add this.
I think the odds of breaking things would be higher than the odds of
improving anyone's life.
It's not unusual for command line parameters to be interpreted more
strictly than the "same" parameters within SQL; an example is that
table names in pg_dump switches, or database names in just about any
client's command line, are taken literally rather than case-folded.
There are a number of reasons for this, one being that the quoting
conventions of a shell don't mix very nicely with SQL's conventions,
and another being that if the parameter is coming from some shell
script's internal variable you don't really want to insist on it
having to be re-quoted to be preserved. That second argument seems
to apply to the arguments of -F and related switches, too.
Between that, and the question of backwards compatibility, and the
existence of easy workarounds, I don't think we should change this.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hans Ginzel | 2015-02-02 17:00:01 | Re: BUG #12725: psql: no interpretation of option -F |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-02-02 15:01:26 | Re: Segfault on exclusion constraint violation |