Re: review: psql: edit function, show function commands patch
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: review: psql: edit function, show function commands patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 27371.1281565262@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: review: psql: edit function, show function commands patch (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: review: psql: edit function, show function commands
patch
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: