On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 12:03:44AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Ross J. Reedstrom writes:
>
> > Yes, BSD systems that install libedit directly in /usr/include (or into
> > readline), like Patrick's, don't need it, but mine do. Is there some
> > reason we _shouldn't_ support this configuration
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 12:03:44AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> I don't like adding code to support every configuration that someone
>>> dreamed up but no one actually needs.
>>
>> Hmm, isn't this exactly what configure i
Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 12:03:44AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Ross J. Reedstrom writes:
> >
> > > Yes, BSD systems that install libedit directly in /usr/include (or into
> > > readline), like Patrick's, don't need it, but mine do. Is there some
> > > reason we _
Ross J. Reedstrom writes:
> Yes, BSD systems that install libedit directly in /usr/include (or into
> readline), like Patrick's, don't need it, but mine do. Is there some
> reason we _shouldn't_ support this configuration?
I don't like adding code to support every configuration that someone
drea
On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 12:05:20AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Ross J. Reedstrom writes:
>
> I don't think this is what we were out for. We've certainly been running
> with libedit for a long time without anyone ever mentioning
> /usr/include/editline. I suggest this part is taken out.
Wel
On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 03:10:19PM -0600, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 11:32:02AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:25:52AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Well, is that a bug in your wrapper? Or must we add a
Ross J. Reedstrom writes:
> O.K., I found the 'editline' wrapper around 'libedit' that provides
> a subset of readline functionality, and used that for testing. On my
> Debian Linux systems, editline installs readline compatability headers
> (readline.h, history.h) into /usr/include/editline/, so
On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 03:10:19PM -0600, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 11:32:02AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:25:52AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Well, is that a bug in your wrapper? Or must we add a
Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:25:52AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, is that a bug in your wrapper? Or must we add a configure test
>> for the presence of replace_history_entry()?
> Good question. Easiest for now for me would be add a configure test.
Ok
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:25:52AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The sad thing is that my readline wrapper for libedit doesn't wrap
> > replace_history_entry,
>
> Well, is that a bug in your wrapper? Or must we add a configure test
> for the presence of r
Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The sad thing is that my readline wrapper for libedit doesn't wrap
> replace_history_entry,
Well, is that a bug in your wrapper? Or must we add a configure test
for the presence of replace_history_entry()?
regards, tom lane
--
The sad thing is that my readline wrapper for libedit doesn't wrap
replace_history_entry, so I could use readline up until now, the tests
for readline succeed as the functions tested for exist, but
command.o: In function `do_edit':
/usr/src/local/pgsql/src/bin/psql/command.c:1652: undefined refere
Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 11:02:55PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Ross J. Reedstrom writes:
> >
> > > I already posted a one-line patch to implement this, but it d
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours.
---
Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10
Eric B.Ridge writes:
> What about expanding the history capabilities of psql's history command
> (\s) to include something more bash/tcsh-like? For example:
> !insert
>-- execute the last command that began with "insert"
> !23
>-- execute item #23 in my history
If you per
I've been following this thread, and I thought this might be a good
place and time to throw in a few additional feature requests.
What about expanding the history capabilities of psql's history command
(\s) to include something more bash/tcsh-like? For example:
!insert
-- execute the
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 11:02:55PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Ross J. Reedstrom writes:
>
> > I already posted a one-line patch to implement this, but it doesn't
> > seem to hve come through to the list. Here it is inline, instead of as
> > an attachment:
>
> We need this to work without re
Ross J. Reedstrom writes:
> I already posted a one-line patch to implement this, but it doesn't
> seem to hve come through to the list. Here it is inline, instead of as
> an attachment:
We need this to work without readline as well. (Of course there won't be
any history, but it needs to compile.
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 07:15:34AM +, Peter Mount wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> > Tom Lane writes:
> >
> > > 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
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > 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 se
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 10:49:33PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne writes:
>
> > Is there any way of making the 'up' arrow retrieve all of the last multiline
> > query, instead of just the last line?
>
> There is nothing technical that should prevent you from implementing
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> 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 ti
Christopher Kings-Lynne writes:
> Is there any way of making the 'up' arrow retrieve all of the last multiline
> query, instead of just the last line?
There is nothing technical that should prevent you from implementing it.
But you need to come up with a reasonable system to keep the history
stra
Tom Lane writes:
> 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.
If you call \e again immediately then you edi
On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 15:30, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > Is there any way of making the 'up' arrow retrieve all of the last multiline
> > > query, instead of just the last line? It's really annoying working with
> > > large multiline queries at the moment...
You could use ledit, piped wi
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Rod Taylor wrote:
> > I'd tend to switch it to store \E QUERY BUFFER in the history, and
> > possibly remove the ability to use \e by itself -- or make \E FILENAME
> > and \e QUERY BUFFER.
> >
> > Since the use of \e isn't likely to be used in a programm
Hi guys,
As a curiosity thought, would it be possible to do something like:
\ep
Where this tells psql to get the query in the history prior to the \e,
and edit it interactively?
:-)
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: tho
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
Rod Taylor wrote:
> I'd tend to switch it to store \E QUERY BUFFER in the history, and
> possibly remove the ability to use \e by itself -- or make \E FILENAME
> and \e QUERY BUFFER.
>
> Since the use of \e isn't likely to be used in a programmatic
> (automated) way, but only by users who could qu
On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 10:42, Peter Mount wrote:
> On 9 Jan 2003, Rod Taylor wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 10:12, Justin Clift wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > > Let's suppose I am writing a query, and then I do \e to edit the query,
> > > > and I exit the editor and return to ps
On 9 Jan 2003, Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 10:12, Justin Clift wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > Let's suppose I am writing a query, and then I do \e to edit the query,
> > > and I exit the editor and return to psql. Suppose I decide I want to
> > > reedit, so I up arrow.
On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 10:13:14 EST, the world broke into rejoicing as
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Justin Clift wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > Let's suppose I am writing a query, and then I do \e to edit the query,
> > > and I exit the editor and return to psql. Suppose I d
On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 10:12, Justin Clift wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Let's suppose I am writing a query, and then I do \e to edit the query,
> > and I exit the editor and return to psql. Suppose I decide I want to
> > reedit, so I up arrow. I would expect to get \e, not the query I just
On 9 Jan 2003 at 10:13, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Justin Clift wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > Let's suppose I am writing a query, and then I do \e to edit the
> > > query, and I exit the editor and return to psql. Suppose I decide
> > > I want to reedit, so I up arrow. I would expect to
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Justin Clift wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Let's suppose I am writing a query, and then I do \e to edit the query,
> > and I exit the editor and return to psql. Suppose I decide I want to
> > reedit, so I up arrow. I would expect to get \e, not the query I just
> > ed
Justin Clift wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Let's suppose I am writing a query, and then I do \e to edit the query,
> > and I exit the editor and return to psql. Suppose I decide I want to
> > reedit, so I up arrow. I would expect to get \e, not the query I just
> > edited, no?
>
> Wouldn'
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Let's suppose I am writing a query, and then I do \e to edit the query,
and I exit the editor and return to psql. Suppose I decide I want to
reedit, so I up arrow. I would expect to get \e, not the query I just
edited, no?
Wouldn't it depend on how this gets implemented?
Justin Clift wrote:
> Dan Langille wrote:
>
> > As this is changing existing behaviour, I think adding an optional
> > switch to revert to the old behaviour is a good idea.
>
> Two thoughts:
>
> a) Is it possible to change the behavior of the history as we're
> discussing? Haven't heard Pete
resent with my real mail address...
On 9 Jan 2003 at 13:45, Peter Mount wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
>
> > On 8 Jan 2003 at 12:28, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > "Alexander M. Pravking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 10:
Justin Clift wrote:
b) Do we really want to go to the effort of adding a switch to revert to
previous behaviour for something like this? It's almost definitely a
win to have \e commands appear in the history, and seems a bit to
trivial for adding switches for.
Bad wording there... "\e command
Dan Langille wrote:
As this is changing existing behaviour, I think adding an optional
switch to revert to the old behaviour is a good idea.
Two thoughts:
a) Is it possible to change the behavior of the history as we're
discussing? Haven't heard Peter's response to this.
b) Do we really wa
On 9 Jan 2003 at 9:15, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 08:45, Peter Mount wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
> > > On 8 Jan 2003 at 12:28, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > > "Alexander M. Pravking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > > > On Wed, Jan
On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 08:45, Peter Mount wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
> > On 8 Jan 2003 at 12:28, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > "Alexander M. Pravking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 10:53:51AM +0100, Ian Barwick wrote:
> > > >
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
> On 8 Jan 2003 at 12:28, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > "Alexander M. Pravking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 10:53:51AM +0100, Ian Barwick wrote:
> > > >> On Wednesday 08 January 2003 07:55, Christopher King
On 8 Jan 2003 at 12:28, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Alexander M. Pravking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 10:53:51AM +0100, Ian Barwick wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday 08 January 2003 07:55, Christopher Kings-Lynne
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> Is there any way of mak
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Alexander M. Pravking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 10:53:51AM +0100, Ian Barwick wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 08 January 2003 07:55, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >>> Is there any way of making the 'up' arrow retrieve all of the last
> >>> multiline que
"Alexander M. Pravking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 10:53:51AM +0100, Ian Barwick wrote:
>> On Wednesday 08 January 2003 07:55, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>>> Is there any way of making the 'up' arrow retrieve all of the last
>>> multiline query, instead of just the la
> > Is there any way of making the 'up' arrow retrieve all of the last multiline
> > query, instead of just the last line? It's really annoying working with
> > large multiline queries at the moment...
>
> When you say multiline do you mean this:
>
> template1=$ select * from
> template1-$ abc a
>
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there any way of making the 'up' arrow retrieve all of the last multiline
> query, instead of just the last line? It's really annoying working with
> large multiline queries at the moment...
When you say multiline do you mean this:
On Wednesday 08 January 2003 13:02, Alexander M. Pravking wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 10:53:51AM +0100, Ian Barwick wrote:
> > On Wednesday 08 January 2003 07:55, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Is there any way of making the 'up' arrow retrieve all of the last
> > > multi
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 10:53:51AM +0100, Ian Barwick wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 January 2003 07:55, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is there any way of making the 'up' arrow retrieve all of the last
> > multiline query, instead of just the last line? It's really annoying
> > working
On Wednesday 08 January 2003 07:55, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there any way of making the 'up' arrow retrieve all of the last
> multiline query, instead of just the last line? It's really annoying
> working with large multiline queries at the moment...
Not that I know of, but yo
Hi,
Is there any way of making the 'up' arrow retrieve all of the last multiline
query, instead of just the last line? It's really annoying working with
large multiline queries at the moment...
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get of
53 matches
Mail list logo
