Thread: psql line number reporting from stdin
There is a long-standing oddity in psql that running psql -f foo.sql returns error messages with file name and line number, like psql:foo.sql:1: ERROR: syntax error at or near "foo" but running psql < foo.sql does not. I suggest we change the latter to print psql:<stdin>:1: ERROR: syntax error at or near "foo" Other examples for the use of the spelling "<stdin>" in this context include gcc and slonik. Error messages printed in interactive mode will not be affected, of course. Patch attached.
Attachment
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > There is a long-standing oddity in psql that running > > psql -f foo.sql > > returns error messages with file name and line number, like > > psql:foo.sql:1: ERROR: syntax error at or near "foo" > > but running > > psql < foo.sql does not. I suggest we change the latter to print > > psql:<stdin>:1: ERROR: syntax error at or near "foo" > > Other examples for the use of the spelling "<stdin>" in this context > include gcc and slonik. > > Error messages printed in interactive mode will not be affected, of > course. > > Patch attached. Seems like a good idea to me. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
Seems like a good idea to me.On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> There is a long-standing oddity in psql that running
>
> psql -f foo.sql
>
> returns error messages with file name and line number, like
>
> psql:foo.sql:1: ERROR: syntax error at or near "foo"
>
> but running
>
> psql < foo.sql does not. I suggest we change the latter to print
>
> psql:<stdin>:1: ERROR: syntax error at or near "foo"
>
> Other examples for the use of the spelling "<stdin>" in this context
> include gcc and slonik.
>
> Error messages printed in interactive mode will not be affected, of
> course.
>
> Patch attached.
Naysayers can always make a case for backwards-compatibility, or not breaking the scripts written with the existing behaviour in mind. Do our docs have anything to say about scripts executed from stdin?
--
Gurjeet Singh
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Gurjeet Singh <singh.gurjeet@gmail.com> wrote: > Naysayers can always make a case for backwards-compatibility, or not > breaking the scripts written with the existing behaviour in mind. I'm having a hard time imagining how this could break anything. What scenario did you have in mind? > Do our > docs have anything to say about scripts executed from stdin? If they do, we can always update them. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
Should've added that I'm not one of them :)
+1 from me on the improvement.
Probably parsing the lines that start with 'ERROR' to report that there were errors in the script.
At the cost of breaking existing scripts (which I am not sure is the case).
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Gurjeet Singh <singh.gurjeet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Naysayers can always make a case
Should've added that I'm not one of them :)
+1 from me on the improvement.
for backwards-compatibility, or notI'm having a hard time imagining how this could break anything. What
> breaking the scripts written with the existing behaviour in mind.
scenario did you have in mind?
Probably parsing the lines that start with 'ERROR' to report that there were errors in the script.
If they do, we can always update them.
> Do our
> docs have anything to say about scripts executed from stdin?
At the cost of breaking existing scripts (which I am not sure is the case).
Regards,
--
Gurjeet Singh
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of sáb nov 26 17:36:15 -0300 2011: > There is a long-standing oddity in psql that running > > psql -f foo.sql > > returns error messages with file name and line number, like > > psql:foo.sql:1: ERROR: syntax error at or near "foo" > > but running > > psql < foo.sql does not. I suggest we change the latter to print > > psql:<stdin>:1: ERROR: syntax error at or near "foo" Not that I have ever used psql in this way, but this format is compatible with Vim "quickfix" whereas the old one is not (not sure what Emacs people would call this). Presumably, this being useless with <stdin> as a file name is the reason this wasn't implemented in the first place. +1 on the change. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 22:36:15 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > There is a long-standing oddity in psql that running > > psql -f foo.sql > > returns error messages with file name and line number, like > > psql:foo.sql:1: ERROR: syntax error at or near "foo" > > but running > > psql < foo.sql does not. I suggest we change the latter to print > > psql:<stdin>:1: ERROR: syntax error at or near "foo" > > Other examples for the use of the spelling "<stdin>" in this context > include gcc and slonik. > > Error messages printed in interactive mode will not be affected, of > course. > > Patch attached. No issue with the change itself, but the docs claim that "the variant using the shell's input redirection is (in theory) guaranteed to yield exactly the same output you would have received had you entered everything by hand." -- nw
On lör, 2011-11-26 at 22:36 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > There is a long-standing oddity in psql that running > > psql -f foo.sql > > returns error messages with file name and line number, like > > psql:foo.sql:1: ERROR: syntax error at or near "foo" > > but running > > psql < foo.sql does not. I suggest we change the latter to print > > psql:<stdin>:1: ERROR: syntax error at or near "foo" It turns out that running psql -f - already used to print psql:<stdin>:1: ERROR: blah except that it got broken between 8.4 and 9.0 (commit b291c0fb), and now prints psql:-:1: ERROR: blah I'll try to find a way to fix that and integrate it with the change I'm proposing.
On lör, 2011-11-26 at 22:36 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > There is a long-standing oddity in psql that running > > psql -f foo.sql > > returns error messages with file name and line number, like > > psql:foo.sql:1: ERROR: syntax error at or near "foo" > > but running > > psql < foo.sql does not. I suggest we change the latter to print > > psql:<stdin>:1: ERROR: syntax error at or near "foo" The problem is, this breaks the regression tests, because first the actual output changes, and second the line numbers get included, which will create a mess every time you edit a test. Not sure whether we can work around that. Ideas?
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > The problem is, this breaks the regression tests, because first the > actual output changes, and second the line numbers get included, which > will create a mess every time you edit a test. Not sure whether we can > work around that. Ideas? Ugh, that's pretty nearly a deal-breaker. Would it be sane to have a command line switch the regression test driver could specify to prevent inclusion of this info? regards, tom lane
On fre, 2011-12-09 at 13:44 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > > The problem is, this breaks the regression tests, because first the > > actual output changes, and second the line numbers get included, which > > will create a mess every time you edit a test. Not sure whether we can > > work around that. Ideas? > > Ugh, that's pretty nearly a deal-breaker. Would it be sane to have a > command line switch the regression test driver could specify to prevent > inclusion of this info? Perhaps. I was thinking we could use an environment variable when running under pg_regress. This could also help, e.g., ecpg.