Re: Explicit psqlrc
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: gabrielle <gorthx@gmail.com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Mark Wong <markwkm@gmail.com>, David Christensen <david@endpoint.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2010-07-20T03:40:07Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:17 AM, gabrielle <gorthx@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Well, that might be a good idea, too, but my expectation is that: >>> >>> psql -f one -f two -f three >>> >>> ought to behave in a manner fairly similar to: >>> >>> cat one two three > all >>> psql -f all >>> >>> and it sounds like with this patch that's far from being the case. >> >> Correct. Each is handled individually. >> >> Should I continue to check on ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK results, or bounce >> this back to the author? > > It doesn't hurt to continue to review and find other problems so that > the author can try to fix them all at once, but it certainly seems > clear that it's not ready to commit at this point, so it definitely > needs to go back to the author for a rework. Since it has been over a month since this review was posted and no new version of the patch has appeared, I think we should mark this patch as Returned with Feedback. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company