Re: failure of \e in psql - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: failure of \e in psql
Date
Msg-id Pine.GSO.4.02A.9911121104290.791-100000@Gepard.DoCS.UU.SE
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: failure of \e in psql  (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: failure of \e in psql
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 12 Nov 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Peter, before I go hunting around, can you tell me any other things psql
> used to do that it doesn't do anymore?

Well, let's put it this way: Everythings that used to work, that people
found useful, and that doesn't work anymore is a bug. That's what it's all
about after all.

However: About the \e thing I simply didn't know. The \p\g was removed for
consistency. You might also be interested to know that \E no longer
exists, because I couldn't make sense of it. Also \d* is slated for
implementation but no one wanted to respond to my request to explain what
this is actually supposed to do. That's all I can come up with right now.

> We had hand-tuned psql over the years, and it would be good to know what
> features no longer exist so we can decide if they are needed.

Well, I really comes down to what Tom said, doesn't it: If the docs don't
match the code, the code it wrong. And it will get fixed. A lot of those
"tunings" seemed to be of the nature "If I put \o after \x I want it to do
<foo> instead".

That doesn't mean that they were bad of course, but the purpose of all of
this was to put a consistent face on things.

Having said that, if I mess it up I'll fix it of course.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: psql and \p\g
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: AW: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] users in Postgresql