Re: psql's \r broken since e984ef5861d

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Julien Rouhaud <julien(dot)rouhaud(at)dalibo(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: psql's \r broken since e984ef5861d
Date: 2017-07-20 02:15:53
Message-ID: 11958.1500516953@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Julien Rouhaud <julien(dot)rouhaud(at)dalibo(dot)com> writes:
> On 20/07/2017 03:34, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Works for me. Please describe exactly what misbehavior you're seeing.

> Here's a simple test case, last \p still show the query buffer:

Ah. I don't feel like trawling the archives for the discussion right now,
but I believe this was an intentional change to make the behavior more
consistent. Prior versions did things weirdly differently depending on
whether you'd typed anything, eg modifying your example slightly:

regression=# select version();
version
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PostgreSQL 9.6.3 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (GCC) 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-18), 64-bit
(1 row)

regression=# \p
select version();
regression=# mistake
regression-# \r
Query buffer reset (cleared).
regression=# \p
select version();
regression=# \g
version
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PostgreSQL 9.6.3 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (GCC) 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-18), 64-bit
(1 row)

I think we felt that throwing away the previous-query buffer
when we didn't have to was generally to be avoided, so we
wanted to standardize on this behavior not the other one.
Do you think differently?

I have some recollection that there were also cases where \p
would print something different than what \g would execute,
which of course is quite nasty.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2017-07-20 02:17:45 Re: autovacuum can't keep up, bloat just continues to rise
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-07-20 02:02:40 Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables