On 07/28/2015 11:52 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-07-28 15:16 GMT+02:00 Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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;' <<<
I think you're probably best off leaving -c alone. If there are issues to be solved for -c they should be handled separately from the feature we agree on.
cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
