Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands:\quit_if, \quit_unless) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Corey Huinker
Subject Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands:\quit_if, \quit_unless)
Date
Msg-id CADkLM=c2fodPhx6_YpMn-B9e8EU8858dWvxq3jUHWC0Ysjv4Ug@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands:\quit_if, \quit_unless)  (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>)
Responses Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands:\quit_if, \quit_unless)
List pgsql-hackers
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?

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ryan Murphy
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Access inside pg_node_tree from query?
Next
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands:\quit_if, \quit_unless)