From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Make "psql -1 < file.sql" work as with "-f" |
Date: | 2013-05-10 16:40:32 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.02.1305101828140.1923@localhost6.localdomain6 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> My first use of 9.3beta1 in development failed because of changes
> introduced by this patch, specifically because of the newly introduced error
>
> psql: -1 is incompatible with -c and -l
>
> I'm not convinced this is correct. -c and -l are single-transaction
> actions almost by definition.
>
> This particular aspect of the change wasn't really brought up in the
> original thread. What was your thinking?
AFAICR, the 3 lines patch I submitted did not include such a check.
Comments by Robert in the source suggest that the -1 option is ignored
under -c and -l. This is because the "transaction" is handled by
process_file which is not called in these cases.
However, if they are single transaction nevertheless, the guard may just
be removed, even if the option does nothing?
ISTM that option -l is readonly, it does not matter much. For -c, I'm not
that sure.
--
Fabien.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-05-10 16:52:55 | Re: pgcrypto: Fix RSA password-protected keys |
Previous Message | Evan D. Hoffman | 2013-05-10 16:36:21 | Re: Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade fails, "mismatch of relation OID" - 9.1.9 to 9.2.4 |