On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 11:30 AM, David Christensen wrote:
>
> On Mar 11, 2011, at 6:17 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I assume having psql support multiple -f files is not a high priority or
something we don't
On Mar 11, 2011, at 6:17 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> I assume having psql support multiple -f files is not a high priority or
>>> something we don't want.
>>
>> IIRC, nobody objected to the basic concept, and it seem
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I assume having psql support multiple -f files is not a high priority or
> > something we don't want.
>
> IIRC, nobody objected to the basic concept, and it seems useful. I
> thought we were pretty close to committing
On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 12:07 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I assume having psql support multiple -f files is not a high priority or
> > something we don't want.
>
> IIRC, nobody objected to the basic concept, and it seems useful. I
> thought
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I assume having psql support multiple -f files is not a high priority or
> something we don't want.
IIRC, nobody objected to the basic concept, and it seems useful. I
thought we were pretty close to committing something along those lines
at
I assume having psql support multiple -f files is not a high priority or
something we don't want.
---
Mark Wong wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I took a stab at changing this up a little bit. I pushed the logic
> that David introduce
Hi all,
I took a stab at changing this up a little bit. I pushed the logic
that David introduced down into process_file(). In doing so I changed
up the declaration of process_file() to accept an additional parameter
specifying how many files are being passed to the function. Doing it
this way a
