|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: InitPostgres and flatfiles question|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> writes:
>>> Is there a good reason to not let psql -c behave exactly like psql from
>> Backwards compatibility, mostly --- there seems to be a considerable
>> risk of subtly breaking people's scripts if we change the transactional
>> boundaries for psql -c commands.
> True, but if we keep hitting people who don't expect this behavior, I
> wonder if we should just fix it and mention it in the release notes.
One other point is that if we change -c's behavior, there won't be
*any* way to submit multiple queries in a single PQexec using plain
psql --- it will require hacking up a special test program using
libpq directly. Unless we have plans to obsolete
multi-queries-per-PQexec altogether, this doesn't seem like a good idea.
OTOH, you could argue that forbidding multiple queries in one PQexec
isn't a bad idea; it would provide an additional defense against
SQL-injection attacks. We did that already in the "extended" query
protocol and I've not heard many complaints.
I'd be willing to buy into doing both together, perhaps.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Bruce Momjian||2007-01-05 03:43:22||Re: InitPostgres and flatfiles question|
|Previous Message||Andrew Dunstan||2007-01-05 03:34:41||Re: ideas for auto-processing patches|