On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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".
Or \e ./1234
It's a minor incompatibility, but it's probably reasonable to allow that.
> 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.
Hmm, OK.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company