Обсуждение: Fwd: psql include file using relative path
psql has the ability to execute commands from a file, but if one wishes to develop and provide a modularized set of sql files, then psql is not very helpful because the \i command can open file paths either if they are absolute paths or if they are palced correctly relative to psql's current working directory.
Attached patch adds a new meta-command to psql, '\ir' that allows the user to process files relative to currently processing file.
Also attached is a sample use case ir_sample. One can extract it _anywhere_ on the filesystem and invoke psql with the path to main.sql and the rest of the files will be automatically included from that location.
Sample session:
[/tmp]$ psql -f ~/dev/ir_sample/main.sql
processing main.sql
BEGIN
processing subdir1/1.sql
processing subdir1/2.sql
processing subdir2/1.sql
processing subdir2/subdir2.1/1.sql
processing subdir2/2.sql
processing subdir2/3.sql
COMMIT
And here's what the sample's directory structure and files look like:
[ir_sample]$ find ./ -name "*.sql" | while read f; do echo === $f ====; cat $f; done
=== ./main.sql ====
\echo processing main.sql
BEGIN;
\ir subdir1/1.sql
\ir subdir1/2.sql
\ir subdir2/1.sql
\ir subdir2/2.sql
\ir subdir2/3.sql
COMMIT;
=== ./subdir1/1.sql ====
\echo processing subdir1/1.sql
=== ./subdir1/2.sql ====
\echo processing subdir1/2.sql
=== ./subdir2/subdir2.1/1.sql ====
\echo processing subdir2/subdir2.1/1.sql
=== ./subdir2/1.sql ====
\echo processing subdir2/1.sql
\ir subdir2.1/1.sql
=== ./subdir2/2.sql ====
\echo processing subdir2/2.sql
=== ./subdir2/3.sql ====
\echo processing subdir2/3.sql
Regards,
--
Gurjeet Singh
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Attached patch adds a new meta-command to psql, '\ir' that allows the user to process files relative to currently processing file.
Also attached is a sample use case ir_sample. One can extract it _anywhere_ on the filesystem and invoke psql with the path to main.sql and the rest of the files will be automatically included from that location.
Sample session:
[/tmp]$ psql -f ~/dev/ir_sample/main.sql
processing main.sql
BEGIN
processing subdir1/1.sql
processing subdir1/2.sql
processing subdir2/1.sql
processing subdir2/subdir2.1/1.sql
processing subdir2/2.sql
processing subdir2/3.sql
COMMIT
And here's what the sample's directory structure and files look like:
[ir_sample]$ find ./ -name "*.sql" | while read f; do echo === $f ====; cat $f; done
=== ./main.sql ====
\echo processing main.sql
BEGIN;
\ir subdir1/1.sql
\ir subdir1/2.sql
\ir subdir2/1.sql
\ir subdir2/2.sql
\ir subdir2/3.sql
COMMIT;
=== ./subdir1/1.sql ====
\echo processing subdir1/1.sql
=== ./subdir1/2.sql ====
\echo processing subdir1/2.sql
=== ./subdir2/subdir2.1/1.sql ====
\echo processing subdir2/subdir2.1/1.sql
=== ./subdir2/1.sql ====
\echo processing subdir2/1.sql
\ir subdir2.1/1.sql
=== ./subdir2/2.sql ====
\echo processing subdir2/2.sql
=== ./subdir2/3.sql ====
\echo processing subdir2/3.sql
Regards,
Gurjeet Singh
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Вложения
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Gurjeet Singh <singh.gurjeet@gmail.com> wrote: > psql has the ability to execute commands from a file, but if one wishes > to develop and provide a modularized set of sql files, then psql is not very > helpful because the \i command can open file paths either if they are > absolute paths or if they are palced correctly relative to psql's current > working directory. > > Attached patch adds a new meta-command to psql, '\ir' that allows the user > to process files relative to currently processing file. Please add this patch to the currently open CommitFest at: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/open -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Gurjeet! What about tab completion, like in \i command? On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Gurjeet Singh <singh.gurjeet@gmail.com> wrote: >> psql has the ability to execute commands from a file, but if one wishes >> to develop and provide a modularized set of sql files, then psql is not very >> helpful because the \i command can open file paths either if they are >> absolute paths or if they are palced correctly relative to psql's current >> working directory. >> >> Attached patch adds a new meta-command to psql, '\ir' that allows the user >> to process files relative to currently processing file. > > Please add this patch to the currently open CommitFest at: > > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/open > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Ibrar Ahmed
Attached patch implements tab completion. It also introduces the long-form alternative \include_relative for \ir
Regards,
--
Regards,
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ahmad@gmail.com> wrote:
Gurjeet!
What about tab completion, like in \i command?> --
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Gurjeet Singh <singh.gurjeet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> psql has the ability to execute commands from a file, but if one wishes
>> to develop and provide a modularized set of sql files, then psql is not very
>> helpful because the \i command can open file paths either if they are
>> absolute paths or if they are palced correctly relative to psql's current
>> working directory.
>>
>> Attached patch adds a new meta-command to psql, '\ir' that allows the user
>> to process files relative to currently processing file.
>
> Please add this patch to the currently open CommitFest at:
>
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/open
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
--
Ibrar Ahmed
--
Вложения
Being able to include relative paths is a really great feature, but should it have a UI (well, API) distinct from fixed-path includes? My first instinct is that it shouldn't, but I haven't really thought it through thoroughly. Cheers, David (the tough coughs as he ploughs the dough) On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 03:19:40PM -0500, Gurjeet Singh wrote: > Attached patch implements tab completion. It also introduces the long-form > alternative \include_relative for \ir > > Regards, > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ahmad@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Gurjeet! > > > > What about tab completion, like in \i command? > > > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Gurjeet Singh <singh.gurjeet@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> psql has the ability to execute commands from a file, but if one > > wishes > > >> to develop and provide a modularized set of sql files, then psql is not > > very > > >> helpful because the \i command can open file paths either if they are > > >> absolute paths or if they are palced correctly relative to psql's > > current > > >> working directory. > > >> > > >> Attached patch adds a new meta-command to psql, '\ir' that allows the > > user > > >> to process files relative to currently processing file. > > > > > > Please add this patch to the currently open CommitFest at: > > > > > > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/open > > > > > > -- > > > Robert Haas > > > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > > > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company > > > > > > -- > > > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > > > To make changes to your subscription: > > > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Ibrar Ahmed > > > > > > -- > Gurjeet Singh > EnterpriseDB <http://www.enterprisedb.com/> Corporation > The Enterprise PostgreSQL <http://www.postgresql.org/> Company > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Good question, I hadn't thought of that either, and thinking about it a bit I think we'd want to keep the current behaviour of \i and provide new behaviour using a new command.
Say when we are processing a pretty nested file after multiple \ir commands, a \i <relative path file> in any of those files should look for that file in psql's CWD/PWD. That is what the user expects from \i command currently and I don't think it'd be desirable to break that assumption.
Regards,
--
Say when we are processing a pretty nested file after multiple \ir commands, a \i <relative path file> in any of those files should look for that file in psql's CWD/PWD. That is what the user expects from \i command currently and I don't think it'd be desirable to break that assumption.
Regards,
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 4:41 PM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:
Being able to include relative paths is a really great feature, but
should it have a UI (well, API) distinct from fixed-path includes? My
first instinct is that it shouldn't, but I haven't really thought it
through thoroughly.
Cheers,
David (the tough coughs as he ploughs the dough)> EnterpriseDB <http://www.enterprisedb.com/> CorporationOn Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 03:19:40PM -0500, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> Attached patch implements tab completion. It also introduces the long-form
> alternative \include_relative for \ir
>
> Regards,
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ahmad@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Gurjeet!
> >
> > What about tab completion, like in \i command?
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Gurjeet Singh <singh.gurjeet@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> psql has the ability to execute commands from a file, but if one
> > wishes
> > >> to develop and provide a modularized set of sql files, then psql is not
> > very
> > >> helpful because the \i command can open file paths either if they are
> > >> absolute paths or if they are palced correctly relative to psql's
> > current
> > >> working directory.
> > >>
> > >> Attached patch adds a new meta-command to psql, '\ir' that allows the
> > user
> > >> to process files relative to currently processing file.
> > >
> > > Please add this patch to the currently open CommitFest at:
> > >
> > > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/open
> > >
> > > --
> > > Robert Haas
> > > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> > > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> > > To make changes to your subscription:
> > > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ibrar Ahmed
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Gurjeet Singh
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL <http://www.postgresql.org/> CompanyDavid Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
--
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
--
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 07:05:19PM -0500, Gurjeet Singh wrote: > Good question, I hadn't thought of that either, and thinking about > it a bit I think we'd want to keep the current behaviour of \i and > provide new behaviour using a new command. > > Say when we are processing a pretty nested file after multiple \ir > commands, a \i <relative path file> in any of those files should > look for that file in psql's CWD/PWD. That is what the user expects > from \i command currently and I don't think it'd be desirable to > break that assumption. I'm not sure I understand. Stuff that worked before would still work. Should stuff break when it has a legitimately accessible path in it just because that path is relative? Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:32 PM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:
files present:
~/1.sql
~/package/main.sql
~/package/1.sql
psql's CWD: $HOME
psql executed as: psql -f ~/package/main.sql
Now if we kept \i and \ir separate then if main.sql does
\i 1.sql
it'd read ~/1.sql, which is the current behaviour,
and
\ir 1.sql
would read ~/package/1.sql .
If we folded \ir into \i then what would you want `\i 1.sql` to do? Read 1.sql from $HOME or the one that is main.sql's sibling.
Given the above test case, I think it'd be best if we introduced a new command for this feature.
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 07:05:19PM -0500, Gurjeet Singh wrote:I'm not sure I understand. Stuff that worked before would still work.
> Good question, I hadn't thought of that either, and thinking about
> it a bit I think we'd want to keep the current behaviour of \i and
> provide new behaviour using a new command.
>
> Say when we are processing a pretty nested file after multiple \ir
> commands, a \i <relative path file> in any of those files should
> look for that file in psql's CWD/PWD. That is what the user expects
> from \i command currently and I don't think it'd be desirable to
> break that assumption.
files present:
~/1.sql
~/package/main.sql
~/package/1.sql
psql's CWD: $HOME
psql executed as: psql -f ~/package/main.sql
Now if we kept \i and \ir separate then if main.sql does
\i 1.sql
it'd read ~/1.sql, which is the current behaviour,
and
\ir 1.sql
would read ~/package/1.sql .
If we folded \ir into \i then what would you want `\i 1.sql` to do? Read 1.sql from $HOME or the one that is main.sql's sibling.
Should stuff break when it has a legitimately accessible path in it
just because that path is relative?
Given the above test case, I think it'd be best if we introduced a new command for this feature.
Regards,
--
On 03/09/2011 09:36 PM, Gurjeet Singh wrote: > If we folded \ir into \i then what would you want `\i 1.sql` to do? > Read 1.sql from $HOME or the one that is main.sql's sibling. > > > Should stuff break when it has a legitimately accessible path in it > just because that path is relative? > > > Given the above test case, I think it'd be best if we introduced a new > command for this feature. > > I agree there's a good case for the new feature. I think someone mentioned tab completion upthread, and that doesn't make so much sense to me. This only makes sense nested in a script - in fact if it's not called from inside an included script (via -f or \i) it should possibly error out (if it already does this I apologise - I haven't looked at the patch). cheers andrew
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
I agree there's a good case for the new feature. I think someone mentioned tab completion upthread, and that doesn't make so much sense to me. This only makes sense nested in a script - in fact if it's not called from inside an included script (via -f or \i) it should possibly error out (if it already does this I apologise - I haven't looked at the patch).
I think \ir can stand on its own. In the patch, the \ir command falls back to \i behaviour if there's no file being processed currently. So, I think tab-completion makes sense for this command. And if someone wishes they can stop using \i altogether and \ir will give them old and new bheaviour seamlessly.
Regards,
--
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:32 PM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 07:05:19PM -0500, Gurjeet Singh wrote: >> Good question, I hadn't thought of that either, and thinking about >> it a bit I think we'd want to keep the current behaviour of \i and >> provide new behaviour using a new command. >> >> Say when we are processing a pretty nested file after multiple \ir >> commands, a \i <relative path file> in any of those files should >> look for that file in psql's CWD/PWD. That is what the user expects >> from \i command currently and I don't think it'd be desirable to >> break that assumption. > > I'm not sure I understand. Stuff that worked before would still work. > > Should stuff break when it has a legitimately accessible path in it > just because that path is relative? You're confused. The point is whether the path is relative to PWD or to the directory in which the currently executing script is located. If you want to allow people to get either interpretation, you need two commands. In interactive use, I believe there's no difference between the two. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 10:57:53PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:32 PM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 07:05:19PM -0500, Gurjeet Singh wrote: > >> Good question, I hadn't thought of that either, and thinking > >> about it a bit I think we'd want to keep the current behaviour of > >> \i and provide new behaviour using a new command. > >> > >> Say when we are processing a pretty nested file after multiple > >> \ir commands, a \i <relative path file> in any of those files > >> should look for that file in psql's CWD/PWD. That is what the > >> user expects from \i command currently and I don't think it'd be > >> desirable to break that assumption. > > > > I'm not sure I understand. Stuff that worked before would still > > work. > > > > Should stuff break when it has a legitimately accessible path in > > it just because that path is relative? > > You're confused. The point is whether the path is relative to PWD > or to the directory in which the currently executing script is > located. If you want to allow people to get either interpretation, > you need two commands. > > In interactive use, I believe there's no difference between the two. Thanks for clearing that up :) OK, nothing to see here. Move along ;) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate