From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>, Postgres - Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: review: psql: edit function, show function commands patch |
Date: | 2010-08-11 22:21:02 |
Message-ID: | 27371.1281565262@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> ... If you're still unhappy with it, you're going to need to
> be more specific, or hack on it yourself.
I'm doing another pass over this. I notice that the documentation
claims the syntax of \e is "\e [FILE] [LINE]", but what is actually
implemented is "\e [FILE [LINE]]", ie it is not possible to specify a
line number without a file. Now, it seems to me that specifying a line
number in the query buffer would actually be a pretty darn useful thing
to do, if you'd typed in a large query and the backend had spit back
"LINE 42: some problem or other". So I think we should fix it so that
case works and the documentation isn't lying. This would require
interpreting \e followed by a digit string as a line number not a file
... anybody have a problem with that? If you're really eager to edit a
numerically-named file you could fake it out with "\e 1234 1".
BTW, there doesn't seem to be a need to do anything similar for \ef.
It does have the ability to omit a func name, but then you get a blank
CREATE FUNCTION template you're going to have to fill in, so there's
no advantage to positioning the cursor beyond the first line to start.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2010-08-11 22:27:18 | Re: patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP) |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-08-11 22:06:23 | Re: string_to_array with an empty input string |