Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes:
That being said, I don't have much of an opinion, so if you see a
problem, then we can forget it. After all, we would need some kind of a
prefix anyway to avoid conflicting with actual SQL... maybe "\m"? And
that defeats a lot of the purpose.
Yeah, requiring a prefix would make it completely pointless I think.
The submitted patch tries to avoid that by only matching syntax that's
invalid in Postgres, but that certainly limits how far we can go with
it. (And like you, I'm a bit worried about the LOAD case.)
yeah requiring a prefix would make it completely pointless
The last go-round on this was just a couple months ago:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2009-11/msg00241.php
although I guess that was aimed at a slightly different idea,
namely making "show databases" etc actually *work*. This one at
least has a level of complication that's more in keeping with the
possible gain.
well providing a hint that one should use different command will only
lead to the path "uhm why not make it work as well" - and we also need
to recongnized that our replacements for some of those commands are not
really equivalent in most cases.
The previous discussion started from the idea that only DESCRIBE,
SHOW DATABASES/TABLES, and USE were worth worrying about. If we
were to agree that we'd go that far and no farther, the potential
conflict with SQL syntax would be pretty limited. I have little
enough experience with mysql to not want to opine too much on how
useful that would be, but it does seem like those are commands
I use right away anytime I am using mysql.
well those are the most common ones I guess for the current version of
the mysql commandline client - but what about future versions or the
fact that we only have partial replacements for some of those that
people are really asking for?
Stefan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
