Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c
От | Catalin Iacob |
---|---|
Тема | Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAHg_5gqds7ipWwykyrMpes_4ZXjyBPLT9PtMWqKzOn5MUK-L9Q@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
Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> 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 couldn't see why it would matter to have multiple -C, but xargs having -n which consumes more than 1 stdin item is indeed an use case. When reading the thread I didn't notice it since I didn't know what -n does. But multiple -C is confusing since it suggests the groupings matter. To me at least, it feels weird that -C "SELECT 1; SELECT 2;" -C "SELECT 3;" is the same as -C "SELECT 1; SELECT 2; SELECT 3" and lots of other combinations. It feels like the split in groups must mean something, otherwise why would you support/use multiple groups? Upthread at least somebody thought each -C group would/should be a transaction and I can see this confusion coming up again and again, enough to question whether this patch is an improvement over the current situation. And if a single -C is too small of an improvement, maybe it means the whole idea should be dropped. I think the same of multiple -f as well: to me they're more confusing than helpful for the same reason.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: