Re: Tom Lane 2014-05-26 <26629.1401119...@sss.pgh.pa.us> > >> Yeah, that would be much cleaner. > > > But that would require duplicating the lexing stuff to determine where > > quotes are and where commands end. There are already some cases where > > pgbench itself is the bottleneck; adding a lexing step would be more > > expensive, no? Whereas simply detecting line continuations would be > > cheaper. > > Well, we only parse the script file(s) once at run start, and that time > isn't included in the TPS timing, so I don't think performance is really > an issue here. But yeah, the amount of code that would have to be > duplicated out of psql is pretty daunting --- it'd be a maintenance > nightmare, for what seems like not a lot of gain. There would also > be a compatibility issue if we went this way, because existing scripts > that haven't bothered with semicolon line terminators would break.
Fwiw, I would love to have some \ line continuation thing also for .psqlrc. I have some dozen \set in there containing queries for looking into stats/locks/whatever I can invoke just typing e.g. :user_tables, and these are pretty hard to edit as they are squeezed on one line. I agree that putting an SQL parser into the backslash command parser is overkill, but there's hardly a chance backslashes at the end of a backslash command line would break anything, except for meeting what most people would expect. Christoph -- c...@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
