Re: review: psql: edit function, show function commands patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: review: psql: edit function, show function commands patch
Date
Msg-id 27371.1281565262@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: review: psql: edit function, show function commands patch  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: review: psql: edit function, show function commands patch
List 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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: string_to_array with an empty input string
Next
From: David Fetter
Date:
Subject: Re: patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)