> Well, it's not *entirely* true that it has only backwards compatibility
> to recommend it: without -c in its current form, there would be no way
> to test multiple-commands-in-one-PQexec cases without hacking up some
> custom test infrastructure.  That's not a very strong reason maybe, but
> it's a reason.  And backwards compatibility is usually a strong argument
> around here anyway.
> I've not been following this thread in any detail, but have we considered
> the approach of allowing multiple -c and saying that each -c is a separate
> PQexec (or backslash command)?  So the semantics of one -c wouldn't change,
> but commands submitted through multiple -c switches would behave
> relatively unsurprisingly, and we wouldn't need two kinds of switch.

I believe it can work, but there are stronger limit of single PQexec call -
only result of last command is displayed.



> Another issue here is how -1 ought to interact with multiple -c.
>                         regards, tom lane

Reply via email to