Message-ID: <8f904f5d-4f19-40c2-97dd-32b974253b01@beckydibble.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:57:28 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Command Line option misunderstanding
To: pgsql-novice@lists.postgresql.org
References: <487DB217-EA37-4139-AB97-B61B04ECAEA7.1@smtp-inbound1.duck.com>
 <cd1068a8f07f98936bc2964dc7c22c109191801b.camel@cybertec.at>
 <493C622D-D3B6-4662-A617-EBCCDE5AA4DF.1@smtp-inbound1.duck.com>
 <B1918EE7-CABD-40D3-8002-B3958F145152.1@smtp-inbound1.duck.com>
 <30948e6771500c0e9d8b587f4e34165aadb1cc0b.camel@cybertec.at>
 <AEA5E111-EE09-4BF3-9009-6A6B12F9F215.1@smtp-inbound1.duck.com>
 <A65F772B-97BF-4F1A-B97C-2E31B3A31E3C.1@smtp-inbound1.duck.com>
 <f6c98da81f11aca47e6f407a1c76c8265cdb1c2a.camel@cybertec.at>
 <D382F206-2094-4A8D-B344-9DDB23D92FEE.1@smtp-inbound1.duck.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Ken Dibble <ken@beckydibble.com>
In-Reply-To: <D382F206-2094-4A8D-B344-9DDB23D92FEE.1@smtp-inbound1.duck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/8f904f5d-4f19-40c2-97dd-32b974253b01%40beckydibble.com>
Precedence: bulk


On 12/3/24 01:12, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-12-02 at 18:49 -0500, punch-hassle-guise@duck.com wrote:
>> The problem seems to be, as alluded to by others attempting to help me
>> that the problem only exists when using -c on the same line as -v.
>> I am guessing here, that my original question should have been:
>>
>> "Why is it okay to use a psql variable declared on a command line in a psql session
>> that was started from said command line and not with a session that was created and
>> destroyed with a -c command switch?"
> "Why" questions tend to be difficult to answer.
> The simple answer is: because somebody implemented it that way.
>
> I dug into the commit history, and the current behavior seems to stem from commit
> a45195a191 from 1999 that introduced psql variables and has the lapidary commit
> message "Major psql overhaul by Peter Eisentraut".
> I couldn't find a pertinent discussion on the list.
>
> If you dislike the current behavior enough, you could write a patch that changes
> it.  There might be some resistence, however, because a behavoir change like that
> could break existing scripts and persent a backward incompatibility.
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
>
Thanks for your time and explanations.

Ken