On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 patch implements the specification described here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-12/msg00255.php > > > 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 made sense to assume anything following a \# to be a number, since "#" here denotes a number. However in order to prevent from bad input, there is a check in the get_hist_entry() function. > > 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? The above mentioned link contains definitions for both of these. Also the second variant here is just for completeness sake. > 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. > This makes more sense and also appears to be much safer. I will start modifying the patch as per this approach now. regards, -- Sibte Abbas
