2013/1/26 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> I wrote:
>> Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> [ gset_13.diff ]
>> One more gripe is that the parsing logic for \gset is pretty
>> unintelligible.
> After further thought, it seems to me that the problem here is an
> overcomplicated definition of the \gset command; it could be made
> both more usable and simpler to implement, if we looked at it
> differently.
> First off, why is there a provision to omit variable names for some
> columns, ie why bother with saying that you can write \gset x,,y to
> store only the first and third columns?  If you didn't want the second
> value, why didn't you leave it out of the SELECT to start with?
> It seems like the only possible reason for that is if you were lazy
> and typed "SELECT *" instead of listing the columns ... but then you
> still need to list the columns in \gset, and it's pretty error-prone
> to make sure that the \gset variable list lines up with what "*" will
> emit.

possibility to skip some variables is David Fetter's idea. I see only
one possible use case - it enable use some query from history without
necessity to modify query or creating some auxiliary variables.
Personally, I can live without this feature, but it question for David

> In fact, it's pretty error-prone to have to make the \gset variable list
> line up with the SELECT columns in any case.  So here's my proposal:
> let's forget the variable list entirely, and use the column names
> returned by the server as the variable names to assign to.  So instead
> of
>         select 1, 2 \gset x,y
> you would write
>         select 1 as x, 2 as y \gset
> or just
>         select 1 x, 2 y \gset
> which is exactly as much typing as the existing definition, but much
> harder to screw up by misaligning the SELECT's values with the target
> names.  It also makes it really trivial to do the "SELECT *" case ---
> you just do it, and ignore any variables for columns you don't care
> about.

hard to say

your proposal has advantages - and implementation is simple, but it is
looking little bit strange - but like other psql features.

I have no strong opinion - I prefer original design, as more explicit
with clean separation line between query and console part, but I am
able to see advantages of your proposal - so depends what will speak
others. I have no problem with your design, although I am thinking so
original design is little bit more safer (but not with significant

> A probably-useful extension to this basic concept is to allow \gset
> to specify an optional prefix, that is
>         select 1 as x, 2 as y \gset p_
> would set p_x and p_y.  This would make it easier to manage results from
> multiple \gset operations, and to be sure that you didn't accidentally
> overwrite some built-in variable.

I understand to motivation - but I am not enthused. Now - a work with
variables is strange - and with it will be more stranger.

> So this seems to me to be easier and less error-prone to use than the
> existing definition.  It would also take a lot less code to implement,
> since the parsing logic for \gset would reduce to a couple of lines,
> and you'd not need the variable-name-list data structure at all.

I will waiting for others - I can live with this proposal.



>                         regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to