On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> I'd pick pg_execute_from_file() and just plain pg_execute(), myself. > > For the record there's only one name exposed at the SQL level. Or do you > want me to expand the patch to actually include a pg_execute() version > of the function, that would execute the query in PG_GETARG_TEXT_P(0)?
No, not particularly. >> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>> What did you think of "pg_execute_sql_file"? >> >> That, I like. > > Ok, I call pg_execute_sql_file() the winner and will prepare a new patch > later tonight, now is comute time. Sounds good. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
