| From: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, PostgreSQL <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless) |
| Date: | 2017-02-11 22:08:27 |
| Message-ID: | CADkLM=dPkC_VCfVtNN+avGLAYpYUR+pkYxcrHvXxth3X0BcXbg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
>
> Just realized that '?' means "unknown transactional status" in %x. That
>> might cause confusion if a person had a prompt of %x%R. Is that enough
>> reason to pick a different cue?
>>
>
> Argh.
>
> "\?\.?[tfz]" seems distinctive enough. Note that %R uses "'=-*^!$( and %x
> uses *!?, which means that they already share 2 characters, so adding ?
> does not seem like a big issue if it was not one before.
>
> Otherwise, maybe "&" or "%", but it is less about a condition.
Fair enough, it shouldn't be too confusing then.
The get_prompt() function can see the global pset, obviously, but can't see
the scan_state, where the if-stack currently resides. I could give up on
the notion of a per-file if-stack and just have one in pset, but that might
make life difficult for whomever is brave enough to tackle \while loops. Or
I could give pset a pointer to the current if-stack inside the scan_state,
or I could have pset hold a stack of stacks. Unsure which way would be
best.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2017-02-11 22:57:43 | Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless) |
| Previous Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2017-02-11 21:44:22 | Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |