Re: csv format for psql

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: csv format for psql
Date: 2018-11-26 16:14:05
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 6:27 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 1. Are we limiting the separator to be a single-byte character or not?

> I agree with what others have said that expanding functionality in
> this direction is more likely to mask errors than be useful.

OK, reasonable arguments were made why not to allow multi-character
separators. Should we then match the server and insist on a single-byte
separator? It's a bit inconsistent if psql can be made to emit "csv"
files that COPY can't read, especially when it's otherwise a subset
of what COPY allows.

>> 2. Speaking of the field separator, I'm pretty desperately unhappy
>> with the choice of "fieldsep_csv" as the parameter name.[...]
>> We could avoid this self-inflicted confusion by choosing a different
>> parameter name. I'd be good with "csv_fieldsep" or "csvfieldsep".

> Make sense to me - with the underscore personally.

Barring complaints, I'll switch it to "csv_fieldsep".

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nikita Glukhov 2018-11-26 16:15:17 Re: SQL/JSON: JSON_TABLE
Previous Message Nikita Glukhov 2018-11-26 16:13:42 Re: SQL/JSON: functions