Re: review: psql: edit function, show function commands patch

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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: 2010-08-09 06:57:45
Message-ID: AANLkTikJ2xotRT4Qqai6+PtcKqA07hgOo0R9aYydY7p7@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello

2010/8/8 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> 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
>

This warnings depends on gcc version, probably :(. On new fedora I see
nothing. So updated patch attached - these variables are initialised
in declaration now.

Regards

Pavel Stehule

>
>                        regards, tom lane
>

Attachment Content-Type Size
edit7.diff text/x-patch 22.1 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Markus Wanner 2010-08-09 07:28:52 Re: parallel quicksort
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2010-08-09 06:06:11 Re: review: psql: edit function, show function commands patch