Hello Tom,
>>> SELECT 1, 2 \; SELECT 3;
>>> \into one two three
>
> Yeah, that's seriously nasty action-at-a-distance in my view. I'd be okay
> with
>
> SELECT 1, 2 \into one two
> SELECT 3 \into three
ISTM that is not the same, because then you would have two queries (over
the network) instead of one, so you pay the network latency twice?
> but I do not think that a metacommand on a following line should
> retroactively affect the execution of a prior command, much less commands
> before the last one.
Nope. The meta-command applies to the preceeding SQL command... which
happens to be a \;-compound command. ISTM that all is logically fine.
Some motivation about the feature (not its syntax or implementation), from
a benchmarking perspective:
- clients MUST read the server answers and possibly reuse them, hence a
proposed \into feature. Discarding the answer as pgbench does not really
comply with typical benchmark rules, eg from tpc-b:
"""1.3.2 Each transaction shall return to the driver the Account_Balance resulting from successful commit of the
transaction.
Comment: It is the intent of this clause that the account balance in the database be returned to the driver, i.e.,
thatthe application retrieve the account balance."""
- latency is important to applications (eg web applications), thus the
ability to compound statements is a good thing. However, if in a bench one
can compound statements but not retrieve their values, it fails the
previous "retrieve the value" requirement.
So basically I wish to avoid splitting compound queries and paying latency
just because of a lack of syntax to do the right thing, hence the proposed
feature which can retrieve data from various parts of a compound
statement.
--
Fabien.