Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was dinking around wand came across something that may (or may not be
> useful).
>
> What if single line statements that were seperated by ; within psql were
> implicitly within a transaction?
>
> E.g;
>
> postgres=# select * from foo; update foo set bar =
Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On May 16, 2006, at 14:17 , Tom Lane wrote:
>> [1] Mostly. There's the infamous continued-string-literal
>> construct...
> Are you referring to this?
> ^
> test=# SELECT 'foo'
> test-# 'bar'; -- valid
Yeah. It seems wei
On May 16, 2006, at 14:17 , Tom Lane wrote:
[1] Mostly. There's the infamous continued-string-literal
construct...
Are you referring to this?
est=# SELECT 'foo''bar'; -- invalid
ERROR: syntax error at or near "'bar'" at character 17
LINE 1: SELECT 'foo''bar';
Tom Lane wrote:
Quite aside from the compatibility and how-useful-is-it-really
arguments, I think this'd be a bad idea in the abstract. SQL is not one
of those languages that assigns semantic significance to the shape of
whitespace [1]. We should NOT introduce any such concept into psql,
becau
Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What use case are you envisioning? Just saving ... *counts ... 14
keystrokes in this case? (I'm not saying there *isn't* a use case. I
just don't see a big benefit here.)
Quite aside from the compatibility and how-useful-is-it-r
Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What use case are you envisioning? Just saving ... *counts ... 14
> keystrokes in this case? (I'm not saying there *isn't* a use case. I
> just don't see a big benefit here.)
Quite aside from the compatibility and how-useful-is-it-really
argumen
On May 16, 2006, at 13:42 , Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What if single line statements that were seperated by ; within
psql were implicitly within a transaction?
Seems like this would risk breaking a lot of scripts.
I wouldn't assum
Tom Lane wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What if single line statements that were seperated by ; within psql were
implicitly within a transaction?
Seems like this would risk breaking a lot of scripts.
I wouldn't assume that it would be a default feature of course. Perhap
""Joshua D. Drake"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> What if single line statements that were seperated by ; within psql were
> implicitly within a transaction?
>
> E.g;
>
> postgres=# select * from foo; update foo set bar = 'baz'; delete from
bing;
>
> Would be a single transaction ? The begin/commi
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What if single line statements that were seperated by ; within psql were
> implicitly within a transaction?
Seems like this would risk breaking a lot of scripts.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcas
Hello,
I was dinking around wand came across something that may (or may not be
useful).
What if single line statements that were seperated by ; within psql were
implicitly within a transaction?
E.g;
postgres=# select * from foo; update foo set bar = 'baz'; delete from bing;
Would be a sin
11 matches
Mail list logo
