On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:32 PM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 07:05:19PM -0500, Gurjeet Singh wrote: > > Good question, I hadn't thought of that either, and thinking about > > it a bit I think we'd want to keep the current behaviour of \i and > > provide new behaviour using a new command. > > > > Say when we are processing a pretty nested file after multiple \ir > > commands, a \i <relative path file> in any of those files should > > look for that file in psql's CWD/PWD. That is what the user expects > > from \i command currently and I don't think it'd be desirable to > > break that assumption. > > I'm not sure I understand. Stuff that worked before would still work. > files present: ~/1.sql ~/package/main.sql ~/package/1.sql psql's CWD: $HOME psql executed as: psql -f ~/package/main.sql Now if we kept \i and \ir separate then if main.sql does \i 1.sql it'd read ~/1.sql, which is the current behaviour, and \ir 1.sql would read ~/package/1.sql . If we folded \ir into \i then what would you want `\i 1.sql` to do? Read 1.sql from $HOME or the one that is main.sql's sibling. > > Should stuff break when it has a legitimately accessible path in it > just because that path is relative? > Given the above test case, I think it'd be best if we introduced a new command for this feature. Regards, -- Gurjeet Singh EnterpriseDB <http://www.enterprisedb.com/> Corporation The Enterprise PostgreSQL <http://www.postgresql.org/> Company
