From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Catalin Iacob <iacobcatalin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Adam Brightwell <adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, dinesh kumar <dineshkumar02(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c |
Date: | 2015-11-17 19:25:25 |
Message-ID: | 22800.1447788325@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>> I honestly don't see what's so confusing about it, and if there is any
>> confusion then surely we could make sure what's happening is well
>> documented.
> +1. I'm actually kind of wondering if we should just back up and
> change the way -c works instead, and allow it to be specified more
> than once. The current behavior is essentially a crock that has only
> backward compatibility to recommend it, and not having two
> confusingly-similar options is of some non-trivial value.
Well, it's not *entirely* true that it has only backwards compatibility
to recommend it: without -c in its current form, there would be no way
to test multiple-commands-in-one-PQexec cases without hacking up some
custom test infrastructure. That's not a very strong reason maybe, but
it's a reason. And backwards compatibility is usually a strong argument
around here anyway.
I've not been following this thread in any detail, but have we considered
the approach of allowing multiple -c and saying that each -c is a separate
PQexec (or backslash command)? So the semantics of one -c wouldn't change,
but commands submitted through multiple -c switches would behave
relatively unsurprisingly, and we wouldn't need two kinds of switch.
Another issue here is how -1 ought to interact with multiple -c.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-11-17 19:29:48 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-11-17 19:15:05 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Cause TestLib.pm to define $windows_os in all branches. |