On 2019-Jan-10, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On 2019-Jan-10, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> This \cset thing seem like an incredibly badly thought out kluge.
> >> What is its excuse to live?
>
> > The reason is that you can set variables from several queries in one
> > network trip.
>
> So who needs that? Just merge the queries, if it's so important that
> you avoid multiple round trips.
Hmm, I suppose that's true.
> > We can take it out I guess, but my impression was that we already pretty
> > much had a consensus that it was wanted.
>
> Maybe if the implementation weren't a pile of junk it'd be all right,
> but as-is this is a mess. The dependency on counting \; in particular
> is setting me off, because that has little if anything to do with the
> number of query results to be expected. I imagine the argument will
> be that nobody would write the sort of queries that break that assumption
> in a pgbench script; but I don't find that kind of design to be up
> to project standards, especially not when the argument for the feature
> is tissue-thin in the first place.
There's a lot of the new code in pgbench that can be simplified if we
remove \cset.
I'll leave time for others to argue for or against cset, and then act
accordingly.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services