On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: > I do not think that having both inferred continuations and explicit > backslash continuations is desirable, it should be one or the other.
+1. My vote is for backslash continuations. Inferred continuations require you to end your expressions in places where they can't legally stop, so you can't do \set x 2 +3 will not do the same thing as \set x 2+ 3 I don't want to get into a situation where every future bit of pgbench syntax we want to introduce has to worry about what the interaction with inferred continuations might be. Backslash continuations are kind of ugly, but it's a simple rule and virtually everybody who is likely to be writing pgbench scripts will understand it immediately. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
