Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c

From: Marc Mamin <M(dot)Mamin(at)intershop(dot)de>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(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: 2015-07-28 12:48:00
Message-ID: B6F6FD62F2624C4C9916AC0175D56D8828C18B8B@jenmbs01.ad.intershop.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


>
>
>2015-07-28 10:43 GMT+02:00 Marc Mamin <M(dot)Mamin(at)intershop(dot)de>:
>
>
> >
> >
> >2015-07-28 5:24 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> >
> > 2015-07-27 21:57 GMT+02:00 Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>:
> >
> > On 07/27/2015 02:53 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >
> > I am trying to run parallel execution
> >
> > psql -At -c "select datname from pg_database" postgres | xargs -n 1 -P 3 psql -c "select current_database()"
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't think it's going to be a hugely important feature, but I don't see a problem with creating a new option (-C seems fine) which would have the same effect as if the arguments were contatenated into a file which is then used with -f. IIRC -c has some special characteristics which means it's probably best not to try to extend it for this feature.
> >
> >
> > ok, I'll try to write patch.
> >
> >
> >I have a question. Can be -C option multiple?
>
>
> hello,
> Have you thought of how to support -1 along with -C ?
>
> > handle the input as with -f
> that is, -1 -C would be equivalent to -c
>
> and
> psql -1 -C "sql_1; sql_2;" -C "sql_3; sql_4;"
>
> => ?
>
> BEGIN;
> sql_1;
> sql_2;
> END;
>
> BEGIN;
> sql_3;
> sql_4;
> END;
>
> thoughts ?
>
>
>"-1" option is global -, I expected so following steps are more natural
>
>BEGIN
> sql_1;
> sql_2;
> sql_3;
> sql_4;
>END;

This is then exactly the same as -c.
If introducing multiple -C to better manage transaction handling,
why not enrich this new feature with the abilities to define batches of transactions ?

Marc

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kouhei Kaigai 2015-07-28 12:58:07 Re: [DESIGN] ParallelAppend
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2015-07-28 12:45:10 Re: pg_dump -Fd and compression level