On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>
> > Naysayers can always make a case
Should've added that I'm not one of them :)
+1 from me on the improvement.
> for backwards-compatibility, or not
> > breaking the scripts written with the existing behaviour in mind.
> I'm having a hard time imagining how this could break anything. What
> scenario did you have in mind?
Probably parsing the lines that start with 'ERROR' to report that there
were errors in the script.
> > Do our
> > docs have anything to say about scripts executed from stdin?
> If they do, we can always update them.
At the cost of breaking existing scripts (which I am not sure is the case).
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: David E. Wheeler||Date: 2011-11-28 17:37:11|
|Subject: Re: Patch: Perl xsubpp|
|Previous:||From: Kohei KaiGai||Date: 2011-11-28 17:00:45|
|Subject: Re: Prep object creation hooks, and related sepgsql updates|