What I couldn't work out was why the original requester didn't use the
Cygwin psql client, which should work just fine, instead of trying to use
the native client which we know has serious limitations.
cheers
andrew
Joshua D. Drake said:
>
>>>http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-04
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-04/threads.php
It seems pretty simple and non-invasive. I don't recall seeing the
reasons against doing it.
We need a large number of users who need something before we add it. If
we didn't we would have a mess of options.
The need
John DeSoi wrote:
>
> On Oct 13, 2005, at 4:42 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > I haven't seen any replies to this, so I guess you are left with
> > either
> > hacking psql yourself or getting Cygwin folks to fix it. Sorry.
>
> I have asked for this also. It would make it much easier to control
On Oct 13, 2005, at 4:42 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I haven't seen any replies to this, so I guess you are left with
either
hacking psql yourself or getting Cygwin folks to fix it. Sorry.
I have asked for this also. It would make it much easier to control
psql from other applications.
ht
I haven't seen any replies to this, so I guess you are left with either
hacking psql yourself or getting Cygwin folks to fix it. Sorry.
---
Bill Bartlett wrote:
> Back in 2003 Bruce Momjian proposed adding a flag (-I) to ps
Back in 2003 Bruce Momjian proposed adding a flag (-I) to psql to force
it into "interactive" mode. (See
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2003-11/msg00013.php for
the thread.) The proposal was rejected because there was no proven need
for it at that time. I'd like to raise this propos
