On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I'd pick pg_execute_from_file() and just plain pg_execute(), myself.
> For the record there's only one name exposed at the SQL level. Or do you
> want me to expand the patch to actually include a pg_execute() version
> of the function, that would execute the query in PG_GETARG_TEXT_P(0)?
No, not particularly.
>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> What did you think of "pg_execute_sql_file"?
>> That, I like.
> Ok, I call pg_execute_sql_file() the winner and will prepare a new patch
> later tonight, now is comute time.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-11-29 17:36:37|
|Subject: Re: PROPOSAL of xmlvalidate|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-11-29 17:34:02|
|Subject: Re: profiling connection overhead|