From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: psql return codes |
Date: | 2006-12-06 20:37:19 |
Message-ID: | 1106.1165437439@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 14:25 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> , but seeing
>> that -c can only issue a single command, implementing ON_ERROR_STOP
>> for it seems like largely a waste of effort.
> The main point is that rc=1 doesn't always mean the same thing, which
> makes it harder to write scripts that handle errors correctly.
You seem to be assuming that -c input should be treated exactly like
script input, which it is not and never has been --- eg, it's not
pre-split at semicolons before submission to the backend. In a green
field doubtless we'd make them more alike, but at this point we really
can't close the gap without risking subtle breakage of people's scripts.
So I don't feel a strong need to make them more consistent on this point
either. The return codes *are* consistent as long as you compare apples
to apples. If you expect -c to be exactly interchangeable with script
input then you're going to get burnt on a lot more than this.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-06 20:59:32 | Re: 8.2 bug with outer join reordering |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-06 20:12:54 | Re: old synchronized scan patch |