Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Catalin Iacob <iacobcatalin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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: 2015-11-15 00:27:38
Message-ID: 5647D17A.1070207@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/13/2015 03:54 PM, Catalin Iacob wrote:
>
> So my proposal is: allow a *single* argument for -C and treat its
> content *exactly* like the input from stdin or from a file.

That seems to me to get rid of the main motivation for this change,
which is to allow multiple such arguments, which together would as as if
they were all written to a file which was then invoked like -f file.

If we can only have a single such argument then the change is of
comparatively little value.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message david.paulo 2015-11-15 02:17:19 Re: How would I get rid of trailing blank line?
Previous Message Chapman Flack 2015-11-15 00:11:32 Re: dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?