Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rod Taylor wrote:
>> Since the use of \e isn't likely to be used in a programmatic
>> (automated) way, but only by users who could quickly figure it out.

> I don't think it makes sense to remove \e just to add history
> functionality.

Indeed, that would defeat the purpose completely, wouldn't it?

If you are using the "\e file" form then the contents of the file
already provide history, of a sort (at least, you can get back the
immediately preceding version of the query when you edit it).
The case I find interesting is where you're using plain "\e" to
re-edit a query interactively.  If this query never gets into the
history buffer then you're lost: you won't be able to pull it back
for re-editing a second time.

Perhaps more to the point: without the "\e" form, \e does not offer a
solution to the original poster's request, and so we're back to square

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to