Suggestion for psql command interpretation
I just made a typo in psql, and it resulted in something I wouldn't have
expected.
js=# \timimng
Showing only tuples.
js=# \t
Tuples only is off.
I also wouldn't have expected \timimng to have been interpreted as
\timing, which I tried to type in the first place, but perhaps a typo
like this should throw an error?
Colin
Colin Wetherbee wrote:
I just made a typo in psql, and it resulted in something I wouldn't have
expected.
Oh, um, this was in the 8.3.1 psql.
Colin
Colin Wetherbee <cww@denterprises.org> writes:
I just made a typo in psql, and it resulted in something I wouldn't have
expected.
js=# \timimng
Showing only tuples.
This is related to the discussion about whether to require a space
between a backslash command name and its arguments ...
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:
Colin Wetherbee <cww@denterprises.org> writes:
I just made a typo in psql, and it resulted in something I
wouldn't have expected.js=# \timimng Showing only tuples.
This is related to the discussion about whether to require a space
between a backslash command name and its arguments ...
I see.
So, this was interpreted by psql in the same way "\t imimng" would
have been? Not that \t does anything with arguments, though...
I just thought I'd report it here in case it wasn't supposed to
happen, but from what you say, it seems like it's a "feature".
Colin
Colin Wetherbee <cww@denterprises.org> writes:
I just thought I'd report it here in case it wasn't supposed to
happen, but from what you say, it seems like it's a "feature".
Well, it's more of a historical hangover. Personally I'd not have
much problem with breaking backward compatibility on this point.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:
Colin Wetherbee <cww@denterprises.org> writes:
I just thought I'd report it here in case it wasn't supposed to
happen, but from what you say, it seems like it's a "feature".Well, it's more of a historical hangover. Personally I'd not have
much problem with breaking backward compatibility on this point.
I'm not generally in the habit of making typos, so this doesn't affect
me too much.
However, IMHO and as I mentioned previously, I don't think "\timimng"
should succeed. I'll leave the rest of the discussion up to you and
the other developers, though. :)
Colin
At 04:46 AM 4/16/2008, Colin Wetherbee wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Colin Wetherbee <cww@denterprises.org> writes:
I just thought I'd report it here in case it wasn't supposed to
happen, but from what you say, it seems like it's a "feature".Well, it's more of a historical hangover. Personally I'd not have
much problem with breaking backward compatibility on this point.I'm not generally in the habit of making typos, so this doesn't
affect me too much.However, IMHO and as I mentioned previously, I don't think
"\timimng" should succeed. I'll leave the rest of the discussion up
to you and the other developers, though. :)
I too agree that \timimng should not work.
Maybe someone can think of an undesirable surprise that springs from
this "feature" ;).
\i
\e
Are possible candidates (probably others could clobber files given a typo).
I think requiring a space between command and arguments would be a
good idea. And not doing stuff if there are syntax errors...
Link.