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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZnLD4J=M19zYGhBHuarXMW+Ydj-t17-ved+_YB5+ko=g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> I honestly don't see what's so confusing about it, and if there is any
> confusion then surely we could make sure what's happening is well
> documented.

+1.  I'm actually kind of wondering if we should just back up and
change the way -c works instead, and allow it to be specified more
than once.  The current behavior is essentially a crock that has only
backward compatibility to recommend it, and not having two
confusingly-similar options is of some non-trivial value.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_receivexlog: spurious error message connecting to 9.3
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Cause TestLib.pm to define $windows_os in all branches.