On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: >> Excerpts from David Fetter's message of mié abr 20 10:54:56 -0300 2011: >>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 08:05:07AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: >>> > Hello >>> > >>> > I played with psql extensions two years ago - it can do it >>> >>> It's interesting, but it doesn't solve the fundamental problem, which >>> is to allow every client, not just psql, to do this. >> >> Why is this problem fundamental? > > I happen to like your idea, even if we had stored procedures...they > have a lot of overlap but so what?. We have server side \copy and > client side COPY -- both are useful. Likewise, (getting back to the > original point of the thread), bechmarking via client scripting and > via procedure are also both useful. Nobody will gripe if psql gets > more features like this -- some people really want to do this on the > client side and there are valid reasons to do that, say, to intermix > client local shell commands between sql lines.
Yep, I agree. However, I think it's completely reasonable, as I said upthread, to ask people not to implement \for as a loop over an integer range in pgbench without answering questions like: 1. What happens if someone wants the other kind of for loop, that iterates until a condition is met? 2. Are we going to get a different and incompatible implementation in psql? -- 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
