Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Catalin Iacob <iacobcatalin(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Adam Brightwell <adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, dinesh kumar <dineshkumar02(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c
Date: 2015-11-16 23:05:31
Message-ID: 564A613B.40407@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/16/2015 11:16 AM, Catalin Iacob wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>> I suggest you review the original thread on this subject before a line was
>> ever written. "multiple" (see subject line on this whole thread) is clearly
>> what is being asked for. Making people turn that into a single argument is
>> not what was envisaged. See for example Pavel's original example involving
>> use of xargs where that's clearly not at all easy.
> I couldn't see why it would matter to have multiple -C, but xargs
> having -n which consumes more than 1 stdin item is indeed an use case.
> When reading the thread I didn't notice it since I didn't know what -n
> does.
>
> But multiple -C is confusing since it suggests the groupings matter.
>
> To me at least, it feels weird that -C "SELECT 1; SELECT 2;" -C
> "SELECT 3;" is the same as -C "SELECT 1; SELECT 2; SELECT 3" and lots
> of other combinations. It feels like the split in groups must mean
> something, otherwise why would you support/use multiple groups?
>
> Upthread at least somebody thought each -C group would/should be a
> transaction and I can see this confusion coming up again and again,
> enough to question whether this patch is an improvement over the
> current situation. And if a single -C is too small of an improvement,
> maybe it means the whole idea should be dropped. I think the same of
> multiple -f as well: to me they're more confusing than helpful for the
> same reason.
>

I honestly don't see what's so confusing about it, and if there is any
confusion then surely we could make sure what's happening is well
documented.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-11-16 23:47:19 Re: [DESIGN] ParallelAppend
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2015-11-16 22:41:41 Re: [PATCH] SQL function to report log message