From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | 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 23:05:31 |
Message-ID: | 564A613B.40407@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/16/2015 11:16 AM, Catalin Iacob wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> 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 couldn't see why it would matter to have multiple -C, but xargs
> having -n which consumes more than 1 stdin item is indeed an use case.
> When reading the thread I didn't notice it since I didn't know what -n
> does.
>
> But multiple -C is confusing since it suggests the groupings matter.
>
> To me at least, it feels weird that -C "SELECT 1; SELECT 2;" -C
> "SELECT 3;" is the same as -C "SELECT 1; SELECT 2; SELECT 3" and lots
> of other combinations. It feels like the split in groups must mean
> something, otherwise why would you support/use multiple groups?
>
> Upthread at least somebody thought each -C group would/should be a
> transaction and I can see this confusion coming up again and again,
> enough to question whether this patch is an improvement over the
> current situation. And if a single -C is too small of an improvement,
> maybe it means the whole idea should be dropped. I think the same of
> multiple -f as well: to me they're more confusing than helpful for the
> same reason.
>
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.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-11-16 23:47:19 | Re: [DESIGN] ParallelAppend |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2015-11-16 22:41:41 | Re: [PATCH] SQL function to report log message |