| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>, Postgres - Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: review: psql: edit function, show function commands patch |
| Date: | 2010-08-08 17:14:44 |
| Message-ID: | 5791.1281287684@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> updated patch attached
What exactly is the point of the \sf command? It seems like quite a lot
of added code for a feature that nobody has requested, and whose
definition is about as ad-hoc as could be. Personally I'd much sooner
use \ef for looking at a function definition. I think if \sf had been
submitted as a separate patch, rather than being snuck in with a feature
people do want, it wouldn't be accepted.
The current patch doesn't even compile warning-free :-(
command.c: In function `exec_command':
command.c:559: warning: `lineno' might be used uninitialized in this function
command.c: In function `editFile':
command.c:1729: warning: `editor_lineno_switch' might be used uninitialized in this function
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-08-08 17:33:33 | Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-08-08 17:07:35 | Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch |