Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Marc Mamin
Subject Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c
Date
Msg-id B6F6FD62F2624C4C9916AC0175D56D8828C18ABC@jenmbs01.ad.intershop.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c
Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c
List pgsql-hackers

>
>
>2015-07-28 5:24 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>:
>
>    2015-07-27 21:57 GMT+02:00 Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>:
>
>        On 07/27/2015 02:53 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>            I am trying to run parallel execution
>
>            psql -At -c "select datname from pg_database" postgres | xargs -n 1 -P 3 psql -c "select current_database()"
>
>
>
>        I don't think it's going to be a hugely important feature, but I don't see a problem with creating a new option (-C seems fine) which would have the same effect as if the arguments were contatenated into a file which is then used with -f. IIRC -c has some special characteristics which means it's probably best not to try to extend it for this feature.
>
>
>    ok, I'll try to write patch.
>
>
>I have a question. Can be -C option multiple?


hello,
Have you thought of how to support -1 along with -C ?

> handle the input as with -f
     that is, -1 -C would be equivalent to -c

and
psql -1 -C "sql_1; sql_2;" -C "sql_3; sql_4;"

=> ?

BEGIN;         
sql_1;         
sql_2;         
END;         

BEGIN;
sql_3;
sql_4;
END;

thoughts ?

The same logic could be added to -f
although I see less advantages as with adding -C

psql -1 -f "file1, file2" -f "file3, file4"

regards,
Marc Mamin

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
Subject: Re: [DESIGN] ParallelAppend
Next
From: Egor Rogov
Date:
Subject: Re: REVOKE [ADMIN OPTION FOR] ROLE