|From:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|To:||Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>|
|Cc:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Removing \cset from pgbench|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
In reply to https://postgr.es/m/alpine.DEB.2.21.1901102211350.27692@lancre
wherein Fabien wrote:
> I'm not very happy with the resulting syntax, but IMO the feature is useful.
> My initial design was to copy PL/pgSQL "into" with some "\into" orthogonal
> to \; and ;, but the implementation was not especially nice and I was told
> to use psql's \gset approach, which I did.
> If we do not provide \cset, then combined queries and getting results are
> not orthogonal, although from a performance testing point of view an
> application could do both, and the point is to allow pgbench to test the
> performance impact of doing that.
We very briefly discussed this topic at FOSDEM pgday. My feeling on the
general opinion is that there's appreciation for \gset in general, but
that people feel that \cset is too much cruft to take for not enough
additional added value (compared to great value delivered by \gset).
What I'm going to do now is to write a patch to remove the \cset part of
the commit and post it, intending to push at some point next week.
If somebody has grown really fond of \cset, they can work on a patch to
implement it properly, which it isn't now.
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
|Next Message||Andres Freund||2019-02-02 13:35:21||Re: fast defaults in heap_getattr vs heap_deform_tuple|
|Previous Message||Thomas Munro||2019-02-02 12:44:30||Re: DNS SRV support for LDAP authentication|