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
11 matches
Mail list logo
