| From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| 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 20:48:17 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.20.1702112128500.26448@lancre |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 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.
--
Fabien.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2017-02-11 21:44:22 | Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |
| Previous Message | Corey Huinker | 2017-02-11 20:07:04 | Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless) |