Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
| From | Pavel Stehule |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | CAFj8pRBgMXsTAhHy8+EqPAW+yAJf3sRQ=BDqKNe2wLOBnzD-Lw@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
(Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
|
| List | pgsql-hackers |
Hi
here is proof concept patch[pavel@localhost psql]$ ./psql -C 'select 10 x; select 20 y;' -C "\l" postgres
x
----
10
(1 row)
y
----
20
(1 row)
List of databases
Name | Owner | Encoding | Collate | Ctype | Access privileges
-----------+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-----------------------
postgres | postgres | UTF8 | en_US.UTF-8 | en_US.UTF-8 |
template0 | postgres | UTF8 | en_US.UTF-8 | en_US.UTF-8 | =c/postgres +
| | | | | postgres=CTc/postgres
template1 | postgres | UTF8 | en_US.UTF-8 | en_US.UTF-8 | =c/postgres +
| | | | | postgres=CTc/postgres
(3 rows)
2015-07-28 18:46 GMT+02:00 Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>:
On 07/28/2015 11:52 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-07-28 15:16 GMT+02:00 Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net <mailto:andrew@dunslane.net>>:
On 07/28/2015 12:08 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-07-28 5:24 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule
<pavel.stehule@gmail.com <mailto:pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
<mailto:pavel.stehule@gmail.com
<mailto:pavel.stehule@gmail.com>>>:
2015-07-27 21:57 GMT+02:00 Andrew Dunstan
<andrew@dunslane.net <mailto:andrew@dunslane.net>
<mailto:andrew@dunslane.net <mailto: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?
The SQL is without problem, but what about \x command?
postgres=# \dt \dn select 10;
No relations found.
List of schemas
┌──────┬───────┐
│ Name │ Owner │
╞══════╪═══════╡
└──────┴───────┘
(0 rows)
\dn: extra argument "10;" ignored
I don't understand the question.
You should include one sql or psql command per -C option, ISTM. e.g.
psql -C '\dt' -C '\dn' -C 'select 10;'
Isn't that what we're talking about with this whole proposal?
I am searching some agreement, how to solve a current "-c" limits. I am 100% for >>> psql -C '\dt' -C '\dn' -C 'select 10;' <<<
I think you're probably best off leaving -c alone. If there are issues to be solved for -c they should be handled separately from the feature we agree on.
cheers
andrew
Attachment
pgsql-hackers by date: