On 2019-Jan-10, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 2019-Jan-10, Tom Lane wrote: > >> This \cset thing seem like an incredibly badly thought out kluge. > >> What is its excuse to live? > > > The reason is that you can set variables from several queries in one > > network trip. > > So who needs that? Just merge the queries, if it's so important that > you avoid multiple round trips.
Hmm, I suppose that's true. > > We can take it out I guess, but my impression was that we already pretty > > much had a consensus that it was wanted. > > Maybe if the implementation weren't a pile of junk it'd be all right, > but as-is this is a mess. The dependency on counting \; in particular > is setting me off, because that has little if anything to do with the > number of query results to be expected. I imagine the argument will > be that nobody would write the sort of queries that break that assumption > in a pgbench script; but I don't find that kind of design to be up > to project standards, especially not when the argument for the feature > is tissue-thin in the first place. There's a lot of the new code in pgbench that can be simplified if we remove \cset. I'll leave time for others to argue for or against cset, and then act accordingly. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
