From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>, Peter Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk>, Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dan Langille <dan(at)langille(dot)org>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: psql and readline |
Date: | 2003-01-09 16:18:55 |
Message-ID: | 1119.1042129135@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> 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 defeat the purpose completely, wouldn't it?
If you are using the "\e file" form then the contents of the file
already provide history, of a sort (at least, you can get back the
immediately preceding version of the query when you edit it).
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.
Perhaps more to the point: without the "\e" form, \e does not offer a
solution to the original poster's request, and so we're back to square
one.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Mount | 2003-01-09 16:23:29 | Re: psql and readline |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-01-09 16:01:26 | Re: psql and readline |