| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniel Vérité <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, Everaldo Canuto <everaldo(dot)canuto(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: alternative psql commands quit and exit |
| Date: | 2017-12-08 19:26:00 |
| Message-ID: | 1735.1512761160@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I'm not sure how we could get away with that. Would it pass muster to do
>> that only when isatty(stdin)? Other ideas?
> What if we made it so that "exit" or "quit" bails out entirely when
> not in a continuation line, and when entered on a continuation line,
> provided isatty(stdin), prints some kind of message telling you that
> you're in a continuation line?
Yeah, that might work. As you say, if it only prints some chatter
(to stderr, I guess) without changing the semantics of the input,
it gets easier to defend.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-08 19:31:52 | Re: explain analyze output with parallel workers - question about meaning of information for explain.depesz.com |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-12-08 19:22:54 | Re: explain analyze output with parallel workers - question about meaning of information for explain.depesz.com |