| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: unexpected psql "feature" |
| Date: | 2016-07-13 21:53:48 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwatDsE2F7KbktMaTjrzspw8Uy28syaOGoUwnL=KJdFNug@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
>
>> I do not think changing this is appropriate. All you are likely to
>> accomplish is breaking code that does what its author wanted.
>>
>
> Hmmm... My 0.02€: Currently this feature is NOT documented, so somehow it
> is not supported, and relying on it seems risky, as it is really a side
> effect of the current implementation. If it becomes documented, it could be
> made to behave sanely at the same time...
To me it has sane and well-defined behavior - if maybe rarely useful.
Why would you choose to execute "SELECT 1 \; SELECT 2;" instead of "SELECT
1; SELECT 2;" in a setup where the behavior of both strings is identical?
Or, rather, how would they differ?
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2016-07-13 21:57:33 | Re: unexpected psql "feature" |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2016-07-13 21:44:17 | Re: unexpected psql "feature" |