On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 17:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > !46 seems awful easy to me.
>
> [ shrug... ] Obviously you've learned a different way of doing things.
> I suppose there's no point in telling you that another way is better
> when you're happy with the one that's already wired into your fingertips.
It took me forever to stop putting -print at the end of find ;)
>
> The main objection I have to the proposal other than not having a use
> for it myself is that adding line numbers to \s output destroys the
> usefulness of \s for any other purpose than the one you propose. In
> particular, you could no longer take a chunk of it and put it into a SQL
> script without doing a lot of tedious (and mistake-prone) editing to get
> rid of the numbers. Since that's the only use I've ever had for \s, I'm
> not happy about losing it.
O.k. what about \s# ? Or something like that... Where \s is the good old
fashioned way, and \s# is my new fandango way?
>
> > Worse yet... what if it is actually query 27 because I got distracted by
> > a support question over jabber from the customer I am actually working
> > on and I need to help him profile a query for a couple of minutes?
>
> Isn't that an argument *against* using numbers for this?
No because I can review my \s, review my list and then begin where I
left off with a simple !27.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate