Hello 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 mainly. > > 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 difference). > > 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 Pavel > > regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers