Re: Appending \o output instead of overwriting the output file

On Feb 19, 2009, at 3:30 AM, Jasen Betts wrote:

> On 2009-02-18, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> writes:
>>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> "Brent Wood" <b(dot)wood(at)niwa(dot)co(dot)nz> writes:
>>>>> Perhaps \o+ as a future fix for this?
>>
>>>> I'd prefer "\o >>file" but maybe I'm too steeped in unix-isms.
>>
>>> \o+ is reasonably consistent with the other \ command usages...
>>
>> Not really; none of the other commands interpret + as meaning
>> "append to
>> an existing file". They tend to take it as meaning "do something *in
>> addition to* what you normally do", not to do something that is
>> significantly different from the base command.
>
> Yes, also if \o already supports | why not other plumbing symbols
> like >> and for completeness > (also possibly >& filedescriptor?)

I like that. Specifying other file descriptors (e.g. 2>) and
redirecting output from on fd to another (#>&) would be nice.

Erik Jones, Database Administrator
Engine Yard
Support, Scalability, Reliability
866.518.9273 x 260
Location: US/Pacific
IRC: mage2k