From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - allow to store select results into variables |
Date: | 2019-01-10 19:14:25 |
Message-ID: | 4245.1547147665@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2019-Jan-10, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This \cset thing seem like an incredibly badly thought out kluge.
>> What is its excuse to live?
> The reason is that you can set variables from several queries in one
> network trip.
So who needs that? Just merge the queries, if it's so important that
you avoid multiple round trips.
> We can take it out I guess, but my impression was that we already pretty
> much had a consensus that it was wanted.
Maybe if the implementation weren't a pile of junk it'd be all right,
but as-is this is a mess. The dependency on counting \; in particular
is setting me off, because that has little if anything to do with the
number of query results to be expected. I imagine the argument will
be that nobody would write the sort of queries that break that assumption
in a pgbench script; but I don't find that kind of design to be up
to project standards, especially not when the argument for the feature
is tissue-thin in the first place.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-01-10 19:18:48 | Re: Policy on cross-posting to multiple lists |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-01-10 19:00:33 | Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - allow to store select results into variables |