Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> ... If you're still unhappy with it, you're going to need to
> be more specific, or hack on it yourself.
I'm doing another pass over this. I notice that the documentation
claims the syntax of \e is "\e [FILE] [LINE]", but what is actually
implemented is "\e [FILE [LINE]]", ie it is not possible to specify a
line number without a file. Now, it seems to me that specifying a line
number in the query buffer would actually be a pretty darn useful thing
to do, if you'd typed in a large query and the backend had spit back
"LINE 42: some problem or other". So I think we should fix it so that
case works and the documentation isn't lying. This would require
interpreting \e followed by a digit string as a line number not a file
... anybody have a problem with that? If you're really eager to edit a
numerically-named file you could fake it out with "\e 1234 1".
BTW, there doesn't seem to be a need to do anything similar for \ef.
It does have the ability to omit a func name, but then you get a blank
CREATE FUNCTION template you're going to have to fill in, so there's
no advantage to positioning the cursor beyond the first line to start.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
