Re: bugfix: --echo-hidden is not supported by \sf statements

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: bugfix: --echo-hidden is not supported by \sf statements
Date: 2013-02-26 19:59:48
Message-ID: 8126.1361908788@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Andrew Dunstan (andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net) wrote:
>> If we're going to mess with this area can I put in a plea to get \ef
>> and \sf to handle full parameter specs? I want to be able to c&p
>> from the \df output to see the function. But here's what happens:

> I was thinking along the same lines. This will involve a bit more code
> in psql, but I think that's better than trying to get the backend to do
> this work for us, for one thing, we want psql to support multiple major
> versions and that could be done by adding code to psql, but couldn't be
> done for released versions if we depend on the backend to solve this
> matching for us.

Dunno, I think that's going to result in a very large chunk of mostly
duplicative code in psql. regprocedurein() is fairly short because it
can rely on a ton of code from the parser, but psql won't have that
luxury.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2013-02-26 20:08:49 Re: bugfix: --echo-hidden is not supported by \sf statements
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2013-02-26 19:40:57 Re: bugfix: --echo-hidden is not supported by \sf statements