Re: [HACKERS] \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 11743.1489765330@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands:\quit_if, \quit_unless) (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands:\quit_if, \quit_unless)
Re: [HACKERS] \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands:\quit_if, \quit_unless) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> writes: >> I also fear that there are corner cases where the behavior would still >> be inconsistent. Consider >> >> \if ... >> \set foo `echo \endif should not appear here` > In this instance, ISTM that there is no problem. On "\if true", set is > executed, all is well. On "\if false", the whole line would be skipped > because the if-related commands are only expected on their own line, all > is well again. No problem. AFAICS, you misunderstood the example completely, or else you're proposing syntax restrictions that are even more bizarre and unintelligible than I thought before. We cannot have a situation where the syntax rules for backslash commands inside an \if are fundamentally different from what they are elsewhere; that's just going to lead to confusion and bug reports. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: