From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: psql - add special variable to reflect the last query status |
Date: | 2017-06-27 07:06:22 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRChRBgHyKw1bG3nG=Lu46PE97Dbcax9pBdKScofqZejVA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi
2017-06-19 5:55 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>
>
> 2017-06-17 7:58 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>:
>
>>
>> I have not any other comments. The implementation is trivial. I rerun all
>>> tests and tests passed.
>>>
>>> I'll mark this patch as ready for commiters.
>>>
>>
>> Oops, I just noticed a stupid confusion on my part which got through, I
>> was setting "ERROR" as "success", inverting the expected boolean value.
>>
>> Here is a fixed version.
>
>
> I missed it too.
>
> We can introduce macro SetVariableBool(vars, varname, bool) instead
>
> SetVariable(pset.vars, "ERROR", "FALSE");
>
I checked source code, and it requires little bit more harder refactoring
because now we have SetVariableBool - what is unhappy name, because it
initialize variable to ON value. It is question what is better name?
I found more interesting issue - the code of SetResultVariables is
partially redundant with AcceptResult - maybe the switch there can be
shared.
Regards
Pavel
>
> Regards
>
> Pavel
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Fabien.
>
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2017-06-27 07:27:18 | Re: Race between SELECT and ALTER TABLE NO INHERIT |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-06-27 06:54:42 | Re: Modifing returning value of PQgetvalue. |