Frank Pinto wrote > I personally like Francisco Olarte's approach. Hashbang's don't support > arguments well ( > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4303128/how-to-use-multiple-arguments-with-a-shebang-i-e) > and being able to put JUST psql as the command to execute the script > doesn't scale across environments. Previously I've just used a quick > wrapper: > > https://gist.github.com/frankpinto/3427cf769a72ef25ffac > > It can be modified to accept arguments for the script name, run a sql > script by the same name, have a default environment, etc. > > Frank While I agree with the sentiment unless someone can present a reason why allowing and then ignoring a she-bang is a terrible idea then this seems like a case for letting end-users decide what is best for themselves. The issue then is that apparently this isn't exactly high on anyone's list of ToDo items so unless the OP or one of the +1 people are willing to supply a patch the odds that it gets done decreases quite quickly. As an aside - putting an "sql" extension onto a file that uses psql commands and features seems wrong... David J. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Petition-Treat-shebangs-as-comments-tp5811962p5811987.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
