Hacker News Reader

Comment by kenshaw | Hacker News Reader

Auto-completion will come in time. I don't know if I would allow "relative" pathing via @@, I'm not sure why you wouldn't just use general paths. As for the other options, such as -f, etc., yes those will be put in place. I am hoping to make this a 100% drop in replacement for psql, so whatever psql supports on the command line, as well as the various backslash commands (ie, \f) will be added.

View on HN

Relative paths are a must. I don't think I ever use non-relative paths.

Say you have a folder structure like this:

    sql/
      tables/
        foo.sql
        bar.sql
      main.sql

And the contents of main.sql are something like this:

      @@tables/foo.sql
      @@tables/foo.sql

Then you can run main.sql via: usql -f sql/main.sql

If script file resolution is not relative pathed to the parent, it gets very fragile as you must invoke the parent from a specific location, or, you have to hard code full pathes in your scripts (arguably even uglier).

This is a feature in psql? I must admit if it is, I'm not familiar with it.

Yes psql supports it. The syntax is "\i path/to/file.sql" or "\ir relative/path/to/file.sql". The latter is resolved relative to the parent script. Makes nesting scripts possible without losing your sanity.

Yes, if it's in psql, I'll get it into usql in the near future.

(for certain large values of near).

This feature is actually borrowed from Oracle's SQLPlus.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com