2017-04-07 21:04 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr>:
>
> Hello Pavel,
>
> I wish I could have an explanation about why the :?varname (or some other
>>> variant) syntax I suggested has a "namespace" issue.
>>>
>>> The advantage that I see is that although it is obviously ugly, it is
>>> ugly
>>> in the continuity of the various :["'?]varname syntaxes already offered
>>> and
>>> it allows to get rid of "defined varname" which does not look like SQL. A
>>> second advantage is that with the "defined" proposal
>>>
>>
>> I don't think so this argument is valid - \if doesn't look like SQL too.
>>
>
> Sure. I'm talking about the expressions after the "\if" which should be as
> close as SQL, I think. At least that is what Tom required about the
> expression syntax in pgbench, and I tend to agree that psql should avoid to
> mix in another language if possible.
>
> \if defined var1 and defined var2 or defined var3 and sqlrt() >= ..
>>>
>>> Would probably never work work, as it cannot be embedded in another
>>> expression, while it would work with
>>>
>>> \if :?var1 and :?var2 or :?var3 and ...
>>>
>>> I don't see any reason why first should not work and second should to
>> work
>>
>
> Because of the mix of client-side and server-side stuff which needs to be
> interpreted. Let us consider:
>
> \if EXISTS (SELECT * FROM tbl WHERE id=3) AND defined foo
>
> The "exists" is obviously executed server-side, but "defined foo" needs to
> be interpreted client-side, and it means that some parser client side would
> have been able to catch it in the middle of everything else. This example
> also illustrate my "does not look like SQL" point, as the first part is
> clearly SQL and the part after AND is not.
>
> With the second approach, ... "AND :?foo", the ":?foo" reference would be
> substituted directly by psql lexer and replaced on the fly by the answer,
> resulting in "AND TRUE" or "AND FALSE" depending, then the whole result
> (from EXISTS to TRUE/FALSE) could be interpreted server side to get an
> answer.
>
> Basically, catching :?varname seems easier/safer than catching "defined
> varname". I think that Tom's intent is that the defined expressions could
> not be mixed with SQL server side stuff, but I do not see why not, it is
> easy to imagine some use case where it would make sense.
>
> I have a different opinion - the condition expression should not be SQL
>> necessary. This language is oriented on client side operations. What is
>> benefit from server side expression?
>>
>
> Because I think it is legitimate to be able to write things like:
>
> \if NOT pg_extension_is_loaded('units')
> \echo 'this application requires the great units extension'
> \q
> \endif
>
> \if (SELECT version FROM app_version) >= 2.0
> \echo 'application already installed at 2.0'
> \q
> \endif
>
>
you proposal disallow client side expressions. I agree so is not possible
to mix server side and client side expressions. But I am sceptic so benefit
of server side expression is higher than a lost of client side expressions.
If we disallow server side expressions, then your examples are only two
lines longer, but the implementation can be more simpler.
SELECT version FROM app_version
\gset
\if :version >= 2.0
...
Still I don't think so server side expression in \if is good idea.
Regards
Pavel
> --
> Fabien.
>
