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

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRAtPbiDTV92CTMhh41w5qZ=pHsWYR7UFEhab43u7XsH-Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi

2015-11-05 22:23 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Catalin Iacob <iacobcatalin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I wrote some text. But needs some work of native speaker.
>>
>> It does.  It would be nice if some kind reviewer could help volunteer
>> to clean that up.
>
> I'll give it a go sometime next week.

Thanks, that would be great!

I recommend comparing the section on -c and the section on -C, and
probably updating the former as well as adjusting the wording of the
latter.  We don't want to repeat all the same details in both places,
but we hopefully want to give people a little clue that if they're
thinking about using -c, they may wish to instead consider -C.

-g was replaced by -C option and some other required changes.

I have not idea about good long name. In this moment I used "multi-command". Can be changed freely.

The name of this patch is same (although it doesn't use "group-command"  internally anymore) due better orientation.

Regards

Pavel
 

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

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: can we add SKIP LOCKED to UPDATE?
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: Some questions about the array.