Rafia Sabih <rafia.sa...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: >>>> +1. My vote is for backslash continuations.
>> I'm fine with that! > Looks good to me also. I concur that we don't want implicit continuation; that creates too many special cases and will certainly fail to generalize to other backslash commands. My gripe with pgbench-set-continuation-1.patch is actually the latter: I do not like the idea that this works only for \set and not other backslash commands. I think we should have uniform behavior across all backslash commands, which probably means implementing this in psqlscan.l not exprscan.l, which probably means that it would apply in psql as well as pgbench. But I argue that's a Good Thing. I certainly don't see that psql needs this less ... try a \copy command with a complicated SELECT source sometime. In short, I want to mark this RWF for today and ask for a version that applies globally to all backslash commands in psql and pgbench. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers