| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | gabrielle <gorthx(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Mark Wong <markwkm(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Christensen <david(at)endpoint(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Explicit psqlrc |
| Date: | 2010-06-23 13:22:17 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTileEVPTJ79UR6TWtIhTxl2ltD8kY-tWXW6cQbFs@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:17 AM, gabrielle <gorthx(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Well, that might be a good idea, too, but my expectation is that:
>>
>> psql -f one -f two -f three
>>
>> ought to behave in a manner fairly similar to:
>>
>> cat one two three > all
>> psql -f all
>>
>> and it sounds like with this patch that's far from being the case.
>
> Correct. Each is handled individually.
>
> Should I continue to check on ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK results, or bounce
> this back to the author?
It doesn't hurt to continue to review and find other problems so that
the author can try to fix them all at once, but it certainly seems
clear that it's not ready to commit at this point, so it definitely
needs to go back to the author for a rework.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-23 14:30:54 | Re: testing plpython3u on 9.0beta2 |
| Previous Message | gabrielle | 2010-06-23 13:17:51 | Re: Explicit psqlrc |