Frank Pinto wrote
> I personally like Francisco Olarte's approach. Hashbang's don't support
> arguments well (
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4303128/how-to-use-multiple-arguments-with-a-shebang-i-e)
> and being able to put JUST psql as the command to execute the script
> doesn't scale across environments. Previously I've just used a quick
> wrapper:
>
> https://gist.github.com/frankpinto/3427cf769a72ef25ffac
>
> It can be modified to accept arguments for the script name, run a sql
> script by the same name, have a default environment, etc.
>
> Frank
While I agree with the sentiment unless someone can present a reason why
allowing and then ignoring a she-bang is a terrible idea then this seems
like a case for letting end-users decide what is best for themselves. The
issue then is that apparently this isn't exactly high on anyone's list of
ToDo items so unless the OP or one of the +1 people are willing to supply a
patch the odds that it gets done decreases quite quickly.
As an aside - putting an "sql" extension onto a file that uses psql commands
and features seems wrong...
David J.
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Petition-Treat-shebangs-as-comments-tp5811962p5811987.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
