2010/3/7 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> 2010/3/6 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
>>> The analogy I was thinking about was psql -X, but I agree that it's
>>> not obvious why this shouldn't be thought of as an additional -f file.
>
>> Uh, I don't follow. When we use -f, we'll run the script and then
>> exit. The whole point is to run it and *not* exit, since you are
>> normally using it to set up the environment in psql.
>
> If we were going to support multiple -f options, it would be sensible
> to interpret "-f -" as "read from stdin until EOF". Then you could
> interleave prepared scripts and stdin, which could be pretty handy.
> The default behavior would be equivalent to a single instance of "-f -",
> and what you are looking for would be "-X -f substitute-psqlrc -f -".
Right, that would work. Though it would be a lot more user-unfriendly
for such a simple thing, IMHO.
Also, "-f -" and just "psql" behaves different today (for example, in
the showing of startup banners). So we couldn't do that without
changing the behaviour of at least one of those. Which may not be a
problem of course, but I'm sure someone will find a place to complain
:)
With your interleave, you mean things like "psql -f first.sql -f - -f
second.sql"? That does sound like it could be handy - and also really
dangerous :-)
> I do think this is potentially cleaner and more general than the
> --psqlrc switch. Maybe that should be reverted and the whole topic
> reconsidered during 9.1 devel cycle.
More general, definitely. But cleaner? I'd say rather the opposite.
In the end, I don't see why we can't have both when the implementation
is so trivial.
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/