Re: BUG #12725: psql: no interpretation of option -F
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #12725: psql: no interpretation of option -F |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 16013.1422890658@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | BUG #12725: psql: no interpretation of option -F (hans@matfyz.cz) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #12725: psql: no interpretation of option -F
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
hans@matfyz.cz writes: > It seems that that the command line parameter of the -F option is not > interpreted for escape sequences. Please add this. I think the odds of breaking things would be higher than the odds of improving anyone's life. It's not unusual for command line parameters to be interpreted more strictly than the "same" parameters within SQL; an example is that table names in pg_dump switches, or database names in just about any client's command line, are taken literally rather than case-folded. There are a number of reasons for this, one being that the quoting conventions of a shell don't mix very nicely with SQL's conventions, and another being that if the parameter is coming from some shell script's internal variable you don't really want to insist on it having to be re-quoted to be preserved. That second argument seems to apply to the arguments of -F and related switches, too. Between that, and the question of backwards compatibility, and the existence of easy workarounds, I don't think we should change this. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: