From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: psql possible TODO |
Date: | 2006-12-05 21:34:51 |
Message-ID: | 200612052134.kB5LYpC18743@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> >> But lastly, do we need this at all? It seems like a relatively awkward,
> >> highly error-prone way to do what you can do today with control-P and
> >> re-execute.
>
> > If you mean control-P as in "paste" then I would say... get your hands
> > off the mouse. The mouse is counter productive and it is faster to do
> > this:
>
> No, I mean control-P as in "recall the previous entry". What you showed
> takes *more* work to recall a recent entry than hitting control-P a few
> times. It has vastly greater chance of error, too, ie, executing the
> wrong command for lack of any feedback about what it is you're really
> about to execute. I will grant that control-P isn't a good way to
> recall an entry from dozens or hundreds of commands ago, but that's what
> control-R is for; and I don't see that a command number would help any
> for that anyway.
>
> > Just like bash.
>
> What we have is just like bash --- at least the parts of it that I use.
This reminds me of the old csh function where you could recall things by
numbers and do search/replace on them. The capability was so hard to
use I could imagine anyone _normal_ using it.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-05 21:37:33 | Re: Double entries in log for page slots in beta3 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-05 21:32:40 | Re: psql possible TODO |