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 |
| 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: