| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Catalin Iacob <iacobcatalin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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>, 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: | 2015-11-16 01:24:36 |
| Message-ID: | 56493054.1040006@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/15/15 9:53 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I suggest you review the original thread on this subject before a line
> was ever written. "multiple" (see subject line on this whole thread) is
> clearly what is being asked for. Making people turn that into a single
> argument is not what was envisaged. See for example Pavel's original
> example involving use of xargs where that's clearly not at all easy.
I can see (small) value in having a new option that is like -c but
interprets the string as a fully-featured script like -f. (Small
because the same behavior can already be had with here strings in bash.)
The behavior should be exactly like -f, including all the behavior with
single-transaction and single-step modes or whatever.
But then I will point out that we currently don't handle multiple -f
options.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2015-11-16 01:34:43 | Re: psql: add \pset true/false |
| Previous Message | andres@anarazel.de | 2015-11-16 00:20:28 | Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches |