Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless
Date: 2016-12-06 06:28:35
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.20.1612060711450.14706@lancre
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Hello Robert,

>> Given the experience with pgbench and the psql context, I do not think that
>> it would really need to go beyond step 2 above, but I agree that I may be
>> wrong and it is best to be prepared for that from the start. Given the
>> complexity and effort involved with (5), it seems wise to wait for a clearer
>> motivation with actual use-cases before going that far.
>
> Well, my vote would be to go all the way to #5 in one commit.
> Stopping short of that doesn't seem to me to save enough work to make
> much sense. I don't think we're talking about anything all that
> complex, and it will make future improvements a lot simpler.

First, my experience as a basic patch submitter is that any patch which
does more than one thing at a time, even somehow closely related changes,
is asked to be split into distinct sub-patches, and is harder to get
through.

Second, requiring more advanced features is a recipee for getting nothing
in the end, because even if not "that complex" it requires significant
more time to develop. The first step I outlined is enough to handle the
submitted use case and is compatible with grand plans which would change
significantly psql, so seems a reasonnable intermediate target.

Your experience as an seasoned core developer and a committer is probably
different:-)

--
Fabien.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2016-12-06 07:15:07 Re: pgcrypto compilation error due to stack-allocated EVP_CIPHER_CTX
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2016-12-06 05:46:13 Re: Typmod associated with multi-row VALUES constructs