| From: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless |
| Date: | 2016-12-02 16:12:10 |
| Message-ID: | CADkLM=dA46KCQpsB24HQzoZ_f2K26BWKNxye35vp5dcdBueWGw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
>
> The other problem with not thinking about that general case is that
> people will keep on proposing little bitty features that nibble at
> the problem but may or may not be compatible with a general solution.
> To the extent that such patches get accepted, we'll be forced into
> either backwards-compatibility breakage or sub-optimal solutions when
> we do get to the point of wanting a general answer. I'd much rather
> start with a generalized design and then implement it piece by piece.
>
> (This is more or less the same point as my nearby stand against localized
> hacking of backslash parsing rules.)
>
> regards, tom lane
>
In order for me to understand how high the bar has been set, can you
(Robert/Tom mostly, but I welcome any responses) explain what you mean by
"full-blown expression language"? What constructs must it include, etc?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-12-02 16:25:08 | Re: patch: function xmltable |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-12-02 15:59:25 | Re: UNDO and in-place update |