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 ;)

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:

Reply via email to