Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] First experiences with Postgresql 7.0
От | Rolf Grossmann |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] First experiences with Postgresql 7.0 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200002241644.RAA58547@blue.securitas.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] First experiences with Postgresql 7.0 (Peter Eisentraut <e99re41@DoCS.UU.SE>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] First experiences with Postgresql 7.0
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] First experiences with Postgresql 7.0 |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, on Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:59:48 +0100 (MET) Peter Eisentraut wrote concerning "Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] First experiences with Postgresql 7.0 " something like this: > (Of course psql is not a shell, but that's why we're discussing ...) Now, be careful with this statement. Personally, I have already tried to use psql as a shell and I think it would be really cool if you could just write #!/path/to/psql -f to write sql scripts. However, that would require psql to treat # as a comment starter and we're moving away from SQL standards with that. So I'm a bit weary of suggesting such a thing. >> Using -f would work if you hadn't already overloaded it with another >> meaning; > [5 min later ...] > Ah, a tcsh user! ;) I could go for an -X option to suppress reading the > startup file, with default being that it is read in any mode. A pretty > dump option letter, but not all that far-fetched. Uhm ... my tcsh manual describes those options differently: -f The shell ignores ~/.tcshrc, and thus starts faster. -X Is to -x as -V is to -v. Of course, as we have noted above, psql is not a shell, so I wonder if that's the way to go. Personally, I'd say just pick a letter. Bye, Rolf
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: