Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Pavel Stehule
Тема Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c
Дата
Msg-id CAFj8pRAtPbiDTV92CTMhh41w5qZ=pHsWYR7UFEhab43u7XsH-Q@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c
Список 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

Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: can we add SKIP LOCKED to UPDATE?
Следующее
От: Pavel Stehule
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Some questions about the array.