| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: InitPostgres and flatfiles question |
| Date: | 2007-01-05 03:38:18 |
| Message-ID: | [email protected] |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> writes:
>>> Is there a good reason to not let psql -c behave exactly like psql from
>>> STDIN?
>>
>> Backwards compatibility, mostly --- there seems to be a considerable
>> risk of subtly breaking people's scripts if we change the transactional
>> boundaries for psql -c commands.
> True, but if we keep hitting people who don't expect this behavior, I
> wonder if we should just fix it and mention it in the release notes.
One other point is that if we change -c's behavior, there won't be
*any* way to submit multiple queries in a single PQexec using plain
psql --- it will require hacking up a special test program using
libpq directly. Unless we have plans to obsolete
multi-queries-per-PQexec altogether, this doesn't seem like a good idea.
OTOH, you could argue that forbidding multiple queries in one PQexec
isn't a bad idea; it would provide an additional defense against
SQL-injection attacks. We did that already in the "extended" query
protocol and I've not heard many complaints.
I'd be willing to buy into doing both together, perhaps.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-01-05 03:43:22 | Re: InitPostgres and flatfiles question |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-01-05 03:34:41 | Re: ideas for auto-processing patches |