| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christoph Berg <christoph(dot)berg(at)credativ(dot)de>, Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: One-shot expanded output in psql using \G |
| Date: | 2017-01-30 15:22:40 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwasriva00vRe9f0TH9=FsVa5ejJDwuFaJF6rNwYrDw=ZA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > This particular bike-shedding really doesn't seem to be terribly useful
> > or sensible, to me. \gx isn't "consistent" or "descriptive", frankly.
>
> Why not? To me it reads as "\g with an x option". The "x" refers to
> the implied "\x", so it's not an arbitrary choice at all.
>
> The main problem I see with \G is that it's a dead end. If somebody
> comes along next year and says "I'd like a variant of \g with some other
> frammish", what will we do? There are no more case variants to use.
>
> In short, really the direction this ought to go in is \g[options] [file]
> which is perfectly consistent with precedents in psql such as \d.
> But there isn't any place where we've decided that upper case means
> a variant of a lower case command.
>
+1
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-01-30 15:26:18 | Re: WIP: About CMake v2 |
| Previous Message | Christoph Berg | 2017-01-30 15:18:05 | Re: One-shot expanded output in psql using \G |