Обсуждение: A question about the psql \copy command
Through the work on the patch [1], I had a question about the psql \copy command. We are permitted 1) but not permitted 2): 1) \copy foo from stdin ; 2) \copy foo from stdin; Is this intentional? I think it would be better to allow for 2). Attached is a patch. Thanks, Best regards, Etsuro Fujita [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/002e01cdff64$a53663b0$efa32b10$@kapila@huaw ei.com
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > Through the work on the patch [1], I had a question about the psql \copy > command. We are permitted 1) but not permitted 2): > 1) \copy foo from stdin ; > 2) \copy foo from stdin; > Is this intentional? I think it would be better to allow for 2). Attached is a > patch. Sounds reasonable to me. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Thursday, February 07, 2013 6:15 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote: > Through the work on the patch [1], I had a question about the psql > \copy command. We are permitted 1) but not permitted 2): > 1) \copy foo from stdin ; > 2) \copy foo from stdin; > Is this intentional? I think it would be better to allow for 2). > Attached is a patch. Verified that attached patch resolves the problem mentioned by you. Ran the regression to ensure that it should not break any existing syntax. Although this is minor bug, but IMO it will improve consistency among \ commands, because other works fine with ";" With Regards, Amit Kapila.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 09:45:17PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > Through the work on the patch [1], I had a question about the psql \copy > command. We are permitted 1) but not permitted 2): > 1) \copy foo from stdin ; > 2) \copy foo from stdin; > Is this intentional? I think it would be better to allow for 2). Attached is a > patch. Modified, attached patch applied. Thanks. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +