Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c
| От | Robert Haas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+TgmoZnLD4J=M19zYGhBHuarXMW+Ydj-t17-ved+_YB5+ko=g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
| Ответы |
Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote: > I honestly don't see what's so confusing about it, and if there is any > confusion then surely we could make sure what's happening is well > documented. +1. I'm actually kind of wondering if we should just back up and change the way -c works instead, and allow it to be specified more than once. The current behavior is essentially a crock that has only backward compatibility to recommend it, and not having two confusingly-similar options is of some non-trivial value. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: