On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> ... If you're still unhappy with it, you're going to need to >> be more specific, or hack on it yourself. > > I'm doing another pass over this. I notice that the documentation > claims the syntax of \e is "\e [FILE] [LINE]", but what is actually > implemented is "\e [FILE [LINE]]", ie it is not possible to specify a > line number without a file. Now, it seems to me that specifying a line > number in the query buffer would actually be a pretty darn useful thing > to do, if you'd typed in a large query and the backend had spit back > "LINE 42: some problem or other". So I think we should fix it so that > case works and the documentation isn't lying. This would require > interpreting \e followed by a digit string as a line number not a file > ... anybody have a problem with that? If you're really eager to edit a > numerically-named file you could fake it out with "\e 1234 1".
Or \e ./1234 It's a minor incompatibility, but it's probably reasonable to allow that. > BTW, there doesn't seem to be a need to do anything similar for \ef. > It does have the ability to omit a func name, but then you get a blank > CREATE FUNCTION template you're going to have to fill in, so there's > no advantage to positioning the cursor beyond the first line to start. Hmm, OK. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
