From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Arthur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH v4] Add \warn to psql |
Date: | 2019-07-05 21:29:03 |
Message-ID: | 20190705212903.GF24679@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 12:38:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> >> [ v7-0001-Add-warn-to-psql.patch ]
>
> > I took a look at this. I have no quibble with the proposed feature,
> > and the implementation is certainly simple enough. But I'm unconvinced
> > about the proposed test scaffolding.
>
> I pushed this with the simplified test methodology.
Thanks!
> While I was fooling with it I noticed that the existing code for -n
> is buggy. The documentation says clearly that only the first
> argument is a candidate to be -n:
>
> If the first argument is an unquoted <literal>-n</literal> the trailing
> newline is not written.
>
> but the actual implementation allows any argument to be recognized as
> -n:
>
> regression=# \echo this -n should not be -n like this
> this should not be like thisregression=#
>
> I fixed that, but I'm wondering if we should back-patch that fix
> or leave the back branches alone.
+0.5 for back-patching.
Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Mercha | 2019-07-05 21:37:03 | Re: Extending PostgreSQL with a Domain-Specific Language (DSL) - Development |
Previous Message | PG Doc comments form | 2019-07-05 21:20:07 | Postgres 11: Table Partitioning and Primary Keys |