2016-07-09 11:19 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr>:

> Hello Pavel,
> Why you are introducing \into and not \gset like psql does?
> Good question.
> The \into syntax I implemented is more generic, you can send a bunch of
> queries together and extract the results, which makes sense from a client
> perspective where reducing latency is important:
>    SELECT 1, 2 \; SELECT 3;
>    \into one two three

I understand, but it looks little bit scary - but the argument of reducing
latency can be valid

> However "gset" only works on the last SELECT and if all columns have a
> name. This feature probably makes sense interactively, but for a script it
> seems more useful to allow batch processing and collect results afterwards.
> Also a more subjective argument: I do not like the gset automagic naming
> feature. I got more inspired by PL/pgSQL and ECPG which both have an "into"
> syntax with explicit variable names that let nothing to guessing. I like
> things to be simple and explicit, hence the proposed into.

the gset was originally designed differently - but now it is here - and it
is not practical to have two different, but pretty similar statements in
psql and pgbench.



> --
> Fabien.

Reply via email to