| From: | Richard Troy <rtroy(at)ScienceTools(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Stephen Harris <lists(at)spuddy(dot)org>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: psql possible TODO |
| Date: | 2006-12-05 23:41:58 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0612051539230.27353-100000@denzel.in |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > O.k. what about \s# ? Or something like that... Where \s is the good old
> > fashioned way, and \s# is my new fandango way?
>
> That's got a meaning already (any argument to \s is the file name to write).
>
> I suppose that if you didn't mind making the command behave
> non-orthogonally, you could have "\s" print line numbers while
> "\s file" doesn't. Not sure if that's a good idea or not ...
Hi Tom, Josh,
Frankly, I don't care about this much, though I tend to lean _against_
numbered querys, however, it occurs to me that perhaps Josh can implement
a command line switch to turn on command line numbering. He gets what he
wants, you get what you want, and the world has a tiny bit more
functionality. It seems to me foolish to change what exists today, but
_adding_ an option seems reasonable if someone wants to impelent it.
Rgds,
Richard
--
Richard Troy, Chief Scientist
Science Tools Corporation
510-924-1363 or 202-747-1263
rtroy(at)ScienceTools(dot)com, http://ScienceTools.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-12-05 23:45:07 | Re: psql possible TODO |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2006-12-05 23:27:17 | Re: psql possible TODO |