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.
In my view they are unrelated: on the one hand "gset" is really an
interactive feature, where typing is costly so "automagic" might make
sense; on the other hand "into" is a scripting feature, where you want to
understand the code and have something as readable as possible, without
surprises.
The commands are named differently and behave differently.
If someone thinks that "gset" is a good idea for pgbench, which I don't,
it could be implemented. I think that an "into" feature, like PL/pgSQL &
ECPG, makes more sense for scripting.
--
Fabien.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
