also sprach Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.11.16.1548 +0100]: > martin f krafft [2007-08-28 19:10 +0200]: > > It would be really nice if psql prompted me whether I wanted to do > > this. As it stands, it just rolls back the transaction. > > This was discussed upstream a while ago. An interactive question was > deemed both too annoying, as well as potentially breaking scripts.
Thanks, Martin, for your efforts. I find the reasoning by upstream pretty unaccceptable. First of all, an interactive question could per definition never break a script, since it would never get asked non-interactively. Second, I can hardly imagine a script doing \q. Third, arguing that a prompt in response to an attempt to quit *while a transaction was open* would be "too annoying" would mean that any application asking me to save changes before quitting is also too annoying. I think they would find it too annoying to implement, because I cannot believe that there are more users out there who'd be annoyed by a safety net question like this than users who'd be annoyed losing data. Fourth, there is the option of making this configurable, i.e. only asking for confirmation when a transaction is in progress and an option has been set. That option could be confirm_quit=yes/no/transaction-only. > Thus a notification needs to be enough. > This can be achieved with using the %x escape sequence for the > PROMPT[1-3] psql variables. Sure, but it won't actually prevent me from accidentally losing a transaction by mistake. -- .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
