Re: TODO item -- Improve psql's handling of multi-line

Modified to use a macro with value 0x01. Applied.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Sergey E. Koposov wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > "Sergey E. Koposov" <math(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)ru> writes:
> > > > But concerning to your zero byte change, it currently just broke
> > > > everything (as I thought, and that's why I didn't implemented it). The
> > > > problem with using zero byte is that it breaks all the readline functions
> > > > read_history and write_history. Those functions deal with usual C
> > > > strings, so putting zero byte inside them will just truncate everything.
> > > > (that's exactly what occur with the psql from CVS).
> > >
> > > If CVS tip is actually broken, we'd better revert this patch and
> > > rethink the approach.
> > >
> > > > So, I don't know. There are two alternatives. One is to use 0x01 byte
> > > > instead: (at least I don't really agree with Tom's comments about possible
> > > > problems with using 0x01 with some exotic encodings)
> > >
> > > Just because you don't use far eastern encodings doesn't mean there's
> > > not a large contingent who do.
> > >
> >
> > I have said the phrase that I don't agree only after at least some
> > checking of the encodings:
> > 1) First I greped the map files
> > pgsql/src/backend/utils/mb/Unicode/*.map and there is no 0x01 byte in any
> > encoding.
> > 2) UCS, UTF don't use 0x01 inside the multibyte chars.
> > 3) I looked on the most problematic encodings like BIG5, JIS, SJIS,
> > ISO-2022-JP
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big5
> > http://lfw.org/text/jp.html
> > and they certainly don't use the 0x01 byte.
> > So myself I'm rather convinced that the 0x01 byte is safe. Probably that's
> > not true, but I have no evidence for that.
> >
>
> OK, seems you did your homework. I will modify the code to use 0x01
> unless someone can find an encoding we support that uses 0x01. I will
> use a macro for 0x01 so it is clearer.
>
> > > I don't understand why any of these shenanigans are needed. If \e is
> > > able to stick a multiline entry into the history, why can't the other
> > > code do it?
> > >
> >
> > The problem is in saving those multiline queries to the disk and
> > loading them again as multiline on next psql session and not with
> > putting the queries into the history for one psql session (that thing
> > works with that patch perfectly fine).
>
> Right, I tested that. Even your patch, if someone does \e and edits a
> query, and then exits psql and restarts it, the query is in lines,
> right, so \e really doesn't work even without your patch.
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
> pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
> + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
> + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073