| From: | Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: psql include file using relative path |
| Date: | 2011-03-10 03:17:15 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=o200TcMq0RFUmAhv-Jp0oiYXHC=7x0QUp8TS3@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)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,
--
Gurjeet Singh
EnterpriseDB <http://www.enterprisedb.com/> Corporation
The Enterprise PostgreSQL <http://www.postgresql.org/> Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-10 03:55:31 | Re: Header comments in the recently added files |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-03-10 03:07:15 | Re: Fwd: psql include file using relative path |