From: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: psql - add ability to test whether a variable exists |
Date: | 2017-08-26 18:20:06 |
Message-ID: | CADkLM=fopFSYp_7KcBftD51j7Oz020y4L-94Jr2Vj+V+7smqNA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
>
> 2017-08-26 19:55 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>:
>
>>
>> Any colon prefixed syntax can be made to work because it is enough for
>>> the lexer to detect and handle... so
>>>
>>> :{defined varname}
>>>
>>> may be an option, although I do not like the space much because it adds
>>> some fuzzyness in the lexer which has to process it. It is probably doable,
>>> though. I like having a "?" because there is a question. Other
>>> suggestions somehow in line with your proposal could be
>>> :{?varname}
>>> :{varname?}
>>> what do you think?
>>>
>>
>> Here is a version with the :{?varname} syntax.
>
>
> It looks much better for me.
>
> Regards
>
> Pavel
>
+1. Glad to have this feature. Any of the proposed syntaxes look good to
me, with a slight preference for {?var}.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-08-26 18:39:36 | Re: Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-08-26 18:09:27 | Re: psql - add ability to test whether a variable exists |