Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c

Hi

2015-11-16 17:16 GMT+01:00 Catalin Iacob <iacobcatalin(at)gmail(dot)com>:

> 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

I disagree

The user can choose the best grouping for better readability and
maintainability.

There is not any real reason to limit

a) number of usage -C option
b) number of commands inside -C option.

The multiple usage of -C option is necessary - the backslash commands with
params have to be alone or last in group

But if it is not necessary, then requirement only one commands per option
is unfriendly

Regards

Pavel

> .
>
> 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.
>