Re: Review: query result history in psql

Hello

2013/7/1 ian link <ian(at)ilink(dot)io>:
> Not sure about all of your suggestions. Let me see if I can clarify what
> you're looking for.
>
>>
>> * simply decision if content should be stored in history or not,
>
> Do you mean that the user should use a flag to place the result of a query
> into the history?
> like:
> --ans SELECT * FROM cities...
> Not sure if that's what you mean, but it seems kind of unnecesary. They can
> just hit the \ans flag beforehand.

switching off on is not user friendly

but maybe some interactive mode should be usefull - so after
execution, and showing result, will be prompt if result should be
saved or not.

some like:

\ans interactive
> SELECT * FROM pg_proc;

**** result ****

should be saved last result [y, n]?
> y
result is saved in :ans22

>

>
>> * simply remove last entry (table) of history
>
> That could be useful. What do you think Maciej?

yes, lot of queries is just +/- experiment and you don't would store result

>
>> * queries should be joined to content, only name is not enough
>
> Don't know what you mean. Could you try re-wording that?
>

yes, the names :ans01, :ans02, ... miss semantics - How I can join
this name (and content) with some SQL query?

I needs to reverese search in SQL of stored caches, and I need a information

ans01 SELECT * FROM pg_proc
ans02 SELECT * FROM ans02 WHERE ...
ans03 ...

Regards

Pavel

> Ian
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> I am not sure, this interface is really user friendly
>>
>> there is not possible "searching" in history, and not every query push
>> to history some interesting content.
>>
>> It require:
>>
>> * simply decision if content should be stored in history or not,
>> * simply remove last entry (table) of history
>> * queries should be joined to content, only name is not enough
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Pavel
>>
>> 2013/6/28 Maciej Gajewski <maciej(dot)gajewski0(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>> > Thanks for checking the patch!
>> >
>> > So what's left to fix?
>> > * Moving the escaping-related functions to separate module,
>> > * applying your corrections.
>> >
>> > Did I missed anything?
>> >
>> > I'll submit corrected patch after the weekend.
>> >
>> > M
>> >
>
>