Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands:\quit_if, \quit_unless)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Corey Huinker
Тема Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands:\quit_if, \quit_unless)
Дата
Msg-id CADkLM=c2fodPhx6_YpMn-B9e8EU8858dWvxq3jUHWC0Ysjv4Ug@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands:\quit_if, \quit_unless)  (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>)
Ответы Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands:\quit_if, \quit_unless)  (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 2:43 AM, Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:

Ok, so that's not just PROMPT_READY, that's every prompt...which might be
ok. ? is a great optional cue, and you're thinking on 2 levels deep, 2nd
level always being '.'?

 Yep. The idea is to keep it short, but to still have something to say "there are more levels" in the stack, hence the one dot. Basically I just compressed your 4 level proposal, and added a separator to deal with the preceding stuff and suggest the conditional.

--
Fabien.

Just realized that '?' means "unknown transactional status" in %x. That might cause confusion if a person had a prompt of %x%R. Is that enough reason to pick a different cue?

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Ryan Murphy
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Access inside pg_node_tree from query?
Следующее
От: Fabien COELHO
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands:\quit_if, \quit_unless)