From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Fwd: psql include file using relative path |
Date: | 2011-03-10 00:32:30 |
Message-ID: | 20110310003230.GB16733@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 07:05:19PM -0500, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> Good question, I hadn't thought of that either, and thinking about
> it a bit I think we'd want to keep the current behaviour of \i and
> provide new behaviour using a new command.
>
> Say when we are processing a pretty nested file after multiple \ir
> commands, a \i <relative path file> in any of those files should
> look for that file in psql's CWD/PWD. That is what the user expects
> from \i command currently and I don't think it'd be desirable to
> break that assumption.
I'm not sure I understand. Stuff that worked before would still work.
Should stuff break when it has a legitimately accessible path in it
just because that path is relative?
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-03-10 00:50:37 | Re: Fwd: index corruption in PG 8.3.13 |
Previous Message | Nikhil Sontakke | 2011-03-10 00:24:30 | Re: Fwd: index corruption in PG 8.3.13 |