2010/8/8 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.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.
I disagree. Now, you cannot to show a detail of function in well readable form. Personally I prefer \sf+ form. Because I can see line numbers, but \sf form is important for some copy paste operations. I don't think, so \ef can replace \sf. It is based on my personal experience. When I have to do some fast fix or fast decision I need to see a source code of some functions (but I am in customer's environment). Starting a external editor is slow and usually you can not there to start your preferable editor. If I return back then my first idea was to modify current \df command to some practical form. Later in discussion was decided so new command will be better. > > 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 there is some strange - it didn't find it in my environment. But I recheck it tomorrow morning. Regards Pavel Stehule > > regards, tom lane > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
