2015-07-28 15:16 GMT+02:00 Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net>: > > On 07/28/2015 12:08 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> >> >> 2015-07-28 5:24 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com <mailto: >> pavel.steh...@gmail.com>>: >> >> >> >> 2015-07-27 21:57 GMT+02:00 Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net >> <mailto:and...@dunslane.net>>: >> >> >> On 07/27/2015 02:53 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I am trying to run parallel execution >> >> psql -At -c "select datname from pg_database" postgres | >> xargs -n 1 -P 3 psql -c "select current_database()" >> >> >> >> >> I don't think it's going to be a hugely important feature, but >> I don't see a problem with creating a new option (-C seems >> fine) which would have the same effect as if the arguments >> were contatenated into a file which is then used with -f. IIRC >> -c has some special characteristics which means it's probably >> best not to try to extend it for this feature. >> >> >> ok, I'll try to write patch. >> >> >> I have a question. Can be -C option multiple? >> >> The SQL is without problem, but what about \x command? >> >> postgres=# \dt \dn select 10; >> No relations found. >> List of schemas >> ┌──────┬───────┐ >> │ Name │ Owner │ >> ╞══════╪═══════╡ >> └──────┴───────┘ >> (0 rows) >> >> \dn: extra argument "10;" ignored >> > > > I don't understand the question. > > You should include one sql or psql command per -C option, ISTM. e.g. > > psql -C '\dt' -C '\dn' -C 'select 10;' > > > Isn't that what we're talking about with this whole proposal? >
I am searching some agreement, how to solve a current "-c" limits. I am 100% for >>> psql -C '\dt' -C '\dn' -C 'select 10;' <<< Regards Pavel > > cheers > > andrew > > >
