Re: [HACKERS] psql --batch

2017-08-28 Thread Fabien COELHO
I don't doubt about a sense of this configuration - but this specific combination depends on usage - so I don't think so using special option is good idea. Although I agree with you that detailed settings are definitely debatable, I'd say that at least it would be a more reasonable starting p

Re: [HACKERS] psql --batch

2017-08-28 Thread Pavel Stehule
2017-08-28 11:05 GMT+02:00 Craig Ringer : > On 28 August 2017 at 16:23, Fabien COELHO wrote: > >> >> This doesn't really address the original issue though, that it's far from >>> obvious how to easily and correctly script psql. >>> >> >> That is another interesting argument. I understood that the

Re: [HACKERS] psql --batch

2017-08-28 Thread Craig Ringer
On 28 August 2017 at 16:23, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > This doesn't really address the original issue though, that it's far from >> obvious how to easily and correctly script psql. >> > > That is another interesting argument. I understood that the issue was > having to type these options, but now i

Re: [HACKERS] psql --batch

2017-08-28 Thread Fabien COELHO
This doesn't really address the original issue though, that it's far from obvious how to easily and correctly script psql. That is another interesting argument. I understood that the issue was having to type these options, but now it is also to remember which one are relevant and wanted, whi

Re: [HACKERS] psql --batch

2017-08-28 Thread Craig Ringer
On 28 August 2017 at 15:34, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > 2017-08-28 9:33 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO : > >> >> ISTM that the real pain is the "-v ON_ERRORS_STOP=1" which I occasionally encountered as well, the other one letter ones are not too bad. Maybe it would be enough to have a shortcut

Re: [HACKERS] psql --batch

2017-08-28 Thread Pavel Stehule
2017-08-28 9:33 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO : > > ISTM that the real pain is the "-v ON_ERRORS_STOP=1" which I occasionally >>> encountered as well, the other one letter ones are not too bad. Maybe it >>> would be enough to have a shortcut for this one, say "-B"? >>> >> >> I agree with last sentence.

Re: [HACKERS] psql --batch

2017-08-28 Thread Fabien COELHO
ISTM that the real pain is the "-v ON_ERRORS_STOP=1" which I occasionally encountered as well, the other one letter ones are not too bad. Maybe it would be enough to have a shortcut for this one, say "-B"? I agree with last sentence. I don't think so -qAtX are expected always, but "-v ON_ERROR

Re: [HACKERS] psql --batch

2017-08-28 Thread Pavel Stehule
2017-08-28 8:56 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO : > > I find myself regurgitating the incantation >> >> psql -qAtX -v ON_ERRORS_STOP=1 >> >> quite a bit. It's not ... super friendly. >> >> It strikes me that we could possibly benefit from a 'psql --batch' option. >> >> Thoughts? >> > > The link between -q

Re: [HACKERS] psql --batch

2017-08-28 Thread Craig Ringer
On 28 August 2017 at 14:56, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > I find myself regurgitating the incantation >> >> psql -qAtX -v ON_ERRORS_STOP=1 >> >> quite a bit. It's not ... super friendly. >> >> It strikes me that we could possibly benefit from a 'psql --batch' option. >> >> Thoughts? >> > > The link be

Re: [HACKERS] psql --batch

2017-08-27 Thread Fabien COELHO
I find myself regurgitating the incantation psql -qAtX -v ON_ERRORS_STOP=1 quite a bit. It's not ... super friendly. It strikes me that we could possibly benefit from a 'psql --batch' option. Thoughts? The link between -qAtX and "batch" is not that fully obvious, especially the unaligned

[HACKERS] psql --batch

2017-08-27 Thread Craig Ringer
Hi all I find myself regurgitating the incantation psql -qAtX -v ON_ERRORS_STOP=1 quite a bit. It's not ... super friendly. It strikes me that we could possibly benefit from a 'psql --batch' option. Thoughts? -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Developm