From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Dan Langille <dan(at)langille(dot)org>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: psql and readline |
Date: | 2003-01-09 15:13:14 |
Message-ID: | 200301091513.h09FDEw14061@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Justin Clift wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> <snip>
> > Let's suppose I am writing a query, and then I do \e to edit the query,
> > and I exit the editor and return to psql. Suppose I decide I want to
> > reedit, so I up arrow. I would expect to get \e, not the query I just
> > edited, no?
>
> Wouldn't it depend on how this gets implemented?
>
> Maybe least negative impact approach (suggested already): If the "large
> command that was edited" is put in the command history before the \e,
> then both are available and there is no big change from "expected
> behaviour".
>
> i.e. one up arrow get the previous \e, and a second up arrow would bring
> up the command that was worked upon.
Makese sense. However, it still has the shock factor of displaying a
huge query, which is usually what is involved when using the editor. I
don't feel strongly either way --- I am just pointing out the issue.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Mount | 2003-01-09 15:22:46 | Re: psql and readline |
Previous Message | Justin Clift | 2003-01-09 15:12:29 | Re: psql and readline |