On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 10:57:53PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:32 PM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > > 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? > > You're confused. The point is whether the path is relative to PWD > or to the directory in which the currently executing script is > located. If you want to allow people to get either interpretation, > you need two commands. > > In interactive use, I believe there's no difference between the two.
Thanks for clearing that up :) OK, nothing to see here. Move along ;) 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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
