Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > Contrary to what the subject suggests, I think the main reason people
> > wanted this feature was to be able to set the linestyle to unicode
> > without getting a warning from older releases about unknown linestyle or
> > something. But in a few year
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Contrary to what the subject suggests, I think the main reason people
> wanted this feature was to be able to set the linestyle to unicode
> without getting a warning from older releases about unknown linestyle or
> something. But in a few years, they'll have to
> maint
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 10/15/2011 09:37 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On tor, 2011-10-13 at 11:31 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> The attached patch changes this to use the _major_ version number for
> >> psql rc files. Does this have to be backward-compatible? Should I
> >> check fo
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tor, 2011-10-13 at 11:31 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > The attached patch changes this to use the _major_ version number for
> > psql rc files. Does this have to be backward-compatible? Should I
> > check for minor and major matches? That is going to be confusing t
On 10/15/2011 09:37 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tor, 2011-10-13 at 11:31 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
The attached patch changes this to use the _major_ version number for
psql rc files. Does this have to be backward-compatible? Should I
check for minor and major matches? That is going to
On tor, 2011-10-13 at 11:31 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> The attached patch changes this to use the _major_ version number for
> psql rc files. Does this have to be backward-compatible? Should I
> check for minor and major matches? That is going to be confusing to
> document.
Contrary to what
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Oops, I see a problem. Right now, our first major release has no zero,
> > e.g. 9.2, while our minors have a third digit, 9.2.5. The problem is
> > that with this patch it is confusing to have a psql config file that
> > matches 9.2.0, but not 9.2.5, b
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Oops, I see a problem. Right now, our first major release has no zero,
> e.g. 9.2, while our minors have a third digit, 9.2.5. The problem is
> that with this patch it is confusing to have a psql config file that
> matches 9.2.0, but not 9.2.5, because you can't write 9.2
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of vie oct 14 09:36:47 -0300 2011:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > >> Oh, true, we have that, though it's not very usable because you have to
> > >> rename the file fro
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of vie oct 14 09:36:47 -0300 2011:
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> Oh, true, we have that, though it's not very usable because you have to
> >> rename the file from .psqlrc-9.0.3 to .psqlrc-9.0.4 when
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mi? may 25 16:07:55 -0400 2011:
> >> > Alvaro Herrera writes:
> >> > > Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar may 24 17:11:17 -0400 2011:
> >> > >> Right
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié may 25 16:07:55 -0400 2011:
>> > Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> > > Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar may 24 17:11:17 -0400 2011:
>> > >> Right. It would also increase the c
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mi?? may 25 16:07:55 -0400 2011:
> > Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > > Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar may 24 17:11:17 -0400 2011:
> > >> Right. It would also increase the cognitive load on the user to have
> > >> to remember the comm
Here's a patch to fix what has been discussed:
* Change EDITOR_LINENUMBER_SWITCH to environment variable.
* I also changed "switch" to "arg" because "switch" is a bit of a
sloppy term.
* So the environment variable is called
PSQL_EDITOR_LINENUMBER_ARG.
* Set
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié may 25 16:07:55 -0400 2011:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar may 24 17:11:17 -0400 2011:
> >> Right. It would also increase the cognitive load on the user to have
> >> to remember the command-line go-to-line-number switch
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar may 24 17:11:17 -0400 2011:
>> Right. It would also increase the cognitive load on the user to have
>> to remember the command-line go-to-line-number switch for his editor.
>> So I don't particularly want to redesign this feature.
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar may 24 17:11:17 -0400 2011:
> Right. It would also increase the cognitive load on the user to have
> to remember the command-line go-to-line-number switch for his editor.
> So I don't particularly want to redesign this feature. However, I can
> see the pos
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> I noticed the 9.1 release notes claim that the new
>>> EDITOR_LINENUMBER_SWITCH thing is an environment variable, whereas it is
>>> actually a psql variable.
>>>
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I noticed the 9.1 release notes claim that the new
>> EDITOR_LINENUMBER_SWITCH thing is an environment variable, whereas it is
>> actually a psql variable.
>> This is perhaps sort of a Freudian slip.
> It's probabl
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> That's an intriguing possibility. But part of the point of the
>>> original feature was to be able to say:
>>>
>>> \ef somefunc 10
>>>
>>> ...and end up on line 10 of somefunc, perhaps in response to an error
>>
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> That's an intriguing possibility. But part of the point of the
>> original feature was to be able to say:
>>
>> \ef somefunc 10
>>
>> ...and end up on line 10 of somefunc, perhaps in response to an error
>> message complaining about that
On sön, 2011-05-22 at 06:30 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> A idea with other options are
> interesting. More usable can be store these option inside psql
> variable (be consistent with current state). Maybe in
> EDITOR_OPTIONS ?
There isn't really a need for that, since if you want to pass options
On lör, 2011-05-21 at 20:39 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > I noticed the 9.1 release notes claim that the new
> > EDITOR_LINENUMBER_SWITCH thing is an environment variable, whereas it is
> > actually a psql variable.
> It's probably the re
2011/5/21 Peter Eisentraut :
> I noticed the 9.1 release notes claim that the new
> EDITOR_LINENUMBER_SWITCH thing is an environment variable, whereas it is
> actually a psql variable.
>
> This is perhaps sort of a Freudian slip. Since the editor itself is
> configured using an environment variabl
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I noticed the 9.1 release notes claim that the new
> EDITOR_LINENUMBER_SWITCH thing is an environment variable, whereas it is
> actually a psql variable.
>
> This is perhaps sort of a Freudian slip. Since the editor itself is
> configured
I noticed the 9.1 release notes claim that the new
EDITOR_LINENUMBER_SWITCH thing is an environment variable, whereas it is
actually a psql variable.
This is perhaps sort of a Freudian slip. Since the editor itself is
configured using an environment variable, shouldn't any configuration
about the
26 matches
Mail list logo
