On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 10:57:53PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:32 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 07:05:19PM -0500, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> >> Good question, I hadn't thought of that either, and thinking
> >> about it a bit I think we'd want to keep the
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:32 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 07:05:19PM -0500, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>> Good question, I hadn't thought of that either, and thinking about
>> it a bit I think we'd want to keep the current behaviour of \i and
>> provide new behaviour using a new comm
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> I agree there's a good case for the new feature. I think someone mentioned
> tab completion upthread, and that doesn't make so much sense to me. This
> only makes sense nested in a script - in fact if it's not called from inside
> an incl
On 03/09/2011 09:36 PM, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
If we folded \ir into \i then what would you want `\i 1.sql` to do?
Read 1.sql from $HOME or the one that is main.sql's sibling.
Should stuff break when it has a legitimately accessible path in it
just because that path is relative?
Give
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:32 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 07:05:19PM -0500, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> > Good question, I hadn't thought of that either, and thinking about
> > it a bit I think we'd want to keep the current behaviour of \i and
> > provide new behaviour using a new
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 07:05:19PM -0500, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> Good question, I hadn't thought of that either, and thinking about
> it a bit I think we'd want to keep the current behaviour of \i and
> provide new behaviour using a new command.
>
> Say when we are processing a pretty nested file
Good question, I hadn't thought of that either, and thinking about it a bit
I think we'd want to keep the current behaviour of \i and provide new
behaviour using a new command.
Say when we are processing a pretty nested file after multiple \ir commands,
a \i in any of those files should look for
Being able to include relative paths is a really great feature, but
should it have a UI (well, API) distinct from fixed-path includes? My
first instinct is that it shouldn't, but I haven't really thought it
through thoroughly.
Cheers,
David (the tough coughs as he ploughs the dough)
On Tue, Mar 0
Attached patch implements tab completion. It also introduces the long-form
alternative \include_relative for \ir
Regards,
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Ibrar Ahmed wrote:
> Gurjeet!
>
> What about tab completion, like in \i command?
>
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
>
Gurjeet!
What about tab completion, like in \i command?
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Gurjeet Singh
> wrote:
>> psql has the ability to execute commands from a file, but if one wishes
>> to develop and provide a modularized set of sq
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> psql has the ability to execute commands from a file, but if one wishes
> to develop and provide a modularized set of sql files, then psql is not very
> helpful because the \i command can open file paths either if they are
> absolute path
psql has the ability to execute commands from a file, but if one wishes
to develop and provide a modularized set of sql files, then psql is not very
helpful because the \i command can open file paths either if they are
absolute paths or if they are palced correctly relative to psql's current
wo
12 matches
Mail list logo
