Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c
| От | Pavel Stehule |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAFj8pRAztH1h7KhD9Z5emU68X0r2cPf5bvD9HS4jeiN+UXOAyQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | proposal: multiple psql option -c ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
2015-07-25 10:33 GMT+02:00 David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>:
On Saturday, July 25, 2015, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:2015-07-23 17:52 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Or just properly understand the ; ?
>>
>> -c "select * from foo; update bar set baz = 'bing'; vacuum bar;"
>
> there is a risk of compatibility issues - all statements runs under one
> transaction implicitly
So what?
[pavel@dhcppc2 ~]$ psql -c "insert into x values(txid_current()::text);insert into x values(txid_current()::text)" postgres
INSERT 0 1
the state string "INSERT 0 1" is buggy probablyHow do you figure? The last statement only inserted one record.
I understand now, it consistent with current design. So from this view it is not error.
To that point would you expect each separate -c to output its results to the console?
It will be nice side effect, but my primary problem was a impossibility to combine VACUUM and any other statement to one simple psql call.
Pavel
David J.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: