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 <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers