Re: Invisible PROMPT2

From: Maxence Ahlouche <maxence(dot)ahlouche(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Invisible PROMPT2
Date: 2019-12-22 16:43:26
Message-ID: CAJeaomUcgUwpLDReMiViNdFJbfmk2R6XEMp1nqRGX0jLu8tnFw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 17:09, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Good idea, but I think you need to account for "visible" (ie, if the
> newline is inside RL_PROMPT_START_IGNORE, it shouldn't change the width).
> It might be best to add logic inside the existing "if (visible)" instead
> of making a new top-level case.
>

Right, I assumed that it was safe given that only terminal control
characters were invisible.
Since the title of the terminal window can be changed as well via control
characters, it's probably better not to make that assumption.

I updated the patch accordingly.

> Another special case that somebody's likely to whine about is \t, though
> to handle that we'd have to make assumptions about the tab stop distance.
> Maybe assuming that it's 8 is good enough.
>

The problem with tabs is that any user can set their tabstops to whatever
they want, and a tab doesn't have a fixed width, it just goes up to the
next tab stop.
One way to do it would be to add tabs wherever necessary in prompt2 to make
sure they have the same size as in prompt1 (a list of numbers of spaces,
which we would concatenate with a tab?), but I'm not sure it's worth the
effort.

Attachment Content-Type Size
psql_prompt_v2.patch text/x-patch 868 bytes

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Philippe BEAUDOIN 2019-12-22 17:04:26 Re: Global temporary tables
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-12-22 16:11:57 Avoiding a small risk of failure in timestamp(tz) regression tests