From: | "Daniel Verite" <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "Fabien COELHO" <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,"PostgreSQL Developers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion |
Date: | 2017-04-03 20:26:24 |
Message-ID: | 9c134d0f-65a7-4dc9-a54b-5b3ea9faf51e@manitou-mail.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Now it could be decided that \set in psql stays simplistic because it is
> not needed as much as it is with pgbench. Fine with me.
It's not just that. It's that currently, if we do in psql:
\set d sqrt(1 + random(1000) * 17)
then we get that:
\echo :d
sqrt(1+random(1000)*17)
I assume we want to keep that pre-existing behavior of \set in
psql, that is, making a copy of that string and associating a
name to it, whereas I guess pgbench computes a value from it and
stores that value.
Certainly if we want the same sort of evaluator in pgbench and psql
we'd better share the code between them, but I don't think it will be
exposed by the same backslash commands in both programs,
if only for that backward compatibility concern.
Best regards,
--
Daniel Vérité
PostgreSQL-powered mailer: http://www.manitou-mail.org
Twitter: @DanielVerite
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-04-03 20:27:42 | Re: identity columns |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-04-03 20:25:06 | Re: SERIALIZABLE with parallel query |