Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFj8pRAg9gAuo-ADifFS4VGjMafovZnoui359pbe7ojjftLruQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Well, it's not *entirely* true that it has only backwards compatibility
to recommend it: without -c in its current form, there would be no way
to test multiple-commands-in-one-PQexec cases without hacking up some
custom test infrastructure. That's not a very strong reason maybe, but
it's a reason. And backwards compatibility is usually a strong argument
around here anyway.
I've not been following this thread in any detail, but have we considered
the approach of allowing multiple -c and saying that each -c is a separate
PQexec (or backslash command)? So the semantics of one -c wouldn't change,
but commands submitted through multiple -c switches would behave
relatively unsurprisingly, and we wouldn't need two kinds of switch.
I believe it can work, but there are stronger limit of single PQexec call - only result of last command is displayed.
Regards
Pavel
Another issue here is how -1 ought to interact with multiple -c.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: