"Sibte Abbas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 9/9/07, Sibte Abbas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Attached is the patch for the TODO item mentioned at >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-09/msg00352.php
I looked this over and realized that it has little to do with the functionality that was so painfully hashed out in the original discussion thread here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-12/msg00207.php As I understood it, the consensus was: 1. Invent a switch (probably a variable instead of a dedicated \-command) that determines whether \s includes command numbers in its output. 2. Add "\# n" to re-execute command number n. You've twisted this around into >> \#: displays the command history. Like \s but prefixes the lines with line >> numbers >> >> \# <line_no>: executes the command(if any) executed at the line specified by >> line_no This is a serious regression in functionality from what was agreed to, because there is no possibility of shoehorning the equivalent of "\s file" into it --- you've already decided that any argument is a line number. It also seems to me to be pretty unintuitive and even dangerous that the same \-command would do *fundamentally* different things depending on whether it has an argument or not. Especially if one of those things involves executing an arbitrary SQL-command. > The attached patch adds the following new functionality: > \#e <lineno>: Will open the command at the given lineno in an editor. > \#e with no lineno will behave exactly like \e. None of that was anywhere in the original discussion; and what pray tell is the use of the second variant? I wonder whether it wouldn't be safer and more convenient if we defined '\# n' as pulling command n into the edit buffer, rather than immediately executing it. Actual execution is only a <return> away, but this definition would allow you to edit the command a bit more before you execute it --- including \e to use an editor. It also closes the loop in terms of providing some confidence that you typed the number you should have typed. BTW, not related to the original discussion, but I fail to understand how anyone finds \s useful interactively, when it doesn't paginate its output. Shouldn't we fix that? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
