> Maybe we could go with :{+...} or the like?
> or maybe :{{ ... }}
Tab completion didn't work for :{?<var>} and I noted that the same problem
would arise for :{+ or :{{ (and tab completion would be more important
here). So I fixed that on:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAGRrpzZU48F2oV3d8eDLr=4tu9xfh5jt9ed+qu1+x91gmh6...@mail.gmail.com
Would be great to have the above fix reviewed/committed to keep making
progress here.
Besides that, since :{ is already sort of a prefix for psql functions, how
about having `:{file(<filename>)}`? That would be clearer than :{+ or :{{.
Best regards,
Steve Chavez
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 at 12:29, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> po 29. 1. 2024 v 18:11 odesÃlatel Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> napsal:
>
>> Steve Chavez <st...@supabase.io> writes:
>> > However, :{?variable_name} is already taken by psql to test whether a
>> > variable is defined or not. It might be confusing to use the same
>> syntax.
>>
>> Hmm. Maybe we could go with :{+...} or the like?
>>
>> > How about using the convention of interpreting an identifier as a file
>> path
>> > if it has an slash on it?
>>
>> Sorry, that is just horrid. foo/bar means division, and "foo/bar"
>> is simply an identifier per SQL standard, so you can't squeeze that
>> in without breaking an ocean of stuff. Plus, there are many use-cases
>> where there's no reason to put a slash in a relative filename.
>>
>
> sometimes paths starts by $ or .
>
> or maybe :{{ ... }}
>
>
>
>>
>> regards, tom lane
>>
>
