On 9 Jan 2003, Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 10:12, Justin Clift wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > Let's suppose I am writing a query, and then I do \e to edit the query,
> > > and I exit the editor and return to psql. Suppose I decide I want to
> > > reedit, so I up arrow. I would expect to get \e, not the query I just
> > > edited, no?
> >
> > Wouldn't it depend on how this gets implemented?
> >
> > Maybe least negative impact approach (suggested already): If the "large
> > command that was edited" is put in the command history before the \e,
> > then both are available and there is no big change from "expected
> > behaviour".
>
> We could always create a new command that edits a query buffer rather
> than file
>
> \e FILENAME
>
> \E QUERY BUFFER
>
>
> So, history of:
> \E SELECT .......
>
> Selecting this would fire off an editor based on the query to the right
> of the command, much as \e FILENAME opens an editor based on the file to
> the right of the command.
That's a possible one, but the only problem I can see is if the user uses
\e on it's own (ie not read in a file).
Do we then place just \e or \E QUERY BUFFER into the history?
Peter
--
Peter Mount
peter@retep.org.uk
http://www.retep.org.uk/Tel/Fax: +44 (0) 1622 749439 Mobile: +44 (0) 7903 155887 US Fax: 1 435 304 5165
US Voice: 1 435 304 5165
