> I like your ideas upthread about \file_read and :{filename}
Great ideas! :{filename} looks more convenient to use than \file_read just
because it's one less command to execute.
However, :{?variable_name} is already taken by psql to test whether a
variable is defined or not. It might be confusing to use the same syntax.
How about using the convention of interpreting an identifier as a file path
if it has an slash on it?
This is used in the Nix language and from experience it works very well:
https://nix.dev/manual/nix/2.18/language/values#type-path
It also makes it very clear that you're using a file path, e.g. :{filename}
vs :./filename. Examples:
select jsonb_to_recordset(:./contents.json);
create function foo() returns text AS :/absolute/path/contents.py language
plpython3u;
Any thoughts?
Best regards,
Steve Chavez
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 at 08:42, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
> On 2024-01-26 Fr 15:17, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> I don't know, maybe I have a problem with the described use case. I
> cannot
> >> imagine holding the body and head of PL routines in different places
> and I
> >> don't understand the necessity to join it.
> > It seems a little weird to me too, and I would vote against accepting
> > \create_function as described because I think too few people would
> > want to use it. However, the idea of an easy way to pull in a file
> > and convert it to a SQL literal seems like it has many applications.
> >
> >
>
>
> Yes, this proposal is far too narrow and would not cater for many use
> cases I have had in the past.
>
> I like your ideas upthread about \file_read and :{filename}
>
>
> cheers
>
>
> andrew
>
> --
> Andrew Dunstan
> EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
>
>
