Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5649D158.1010900@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/15/2015 08:24 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 11/15/15 9:53 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> I suggest you review the original thread on this subject before a line >> was ever written. "multiple" (see subject line on this whole thread) is >> clearly what is being asked for. Making people turn that into a single >> argument is not what was envisaged. See for example Pavel's original >> example involving use of xargs where that's clearly not at all easy. > I can see (small) value in having a new option that is like -c but > interprets the string as a fully-featured script like -f. (Small > because the same behavior can already be had with here strings in bash.) > > The behavior should be exactly like -f, including all the behavior with > single-transaction and single-step modes or whatever. > > But then I will point out that we currently don't handle multiple -f > options. > > If we can only have one I would say the value is vanishingly small. As to -f, I don't see why we shouldn't allow multiple such options, only that nobody has bothered to do it. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: