Re: [HACKERS] psql and libpq fixes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] psql and libpq fixes
Date
Msg-id 22504.949970790@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to psql and libpq fixes  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] psql and libpq fixes  (Peter Eisentraut <e99re41@DoCS.UU.SE>)
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> While we're at it, there's a setting that causes psql to stop execution of
> a script on an error (since usually the later commands will be depending
> on the successful completion of earlier ones). I was wondering if that
> should be the default if you use the -f option.

Sounds useful, but you can't make it the default without breaking existing
scripts.  Trivial example is this common idiom:DROP TABLE t1;       -- in case it already existsCREATE TABLE t1;COPY
...

In general, an existing script is not going to be written with the idea
that psql will cut it off at the knees for provoking an error.  If the
author *does* want all the rest of the commands to be skipped on error,
he'll just have written BEGIN and END around the whole script.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] TODO item
Next
From: "Hiroshi Inoue"
Date:
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] TODO item