* Pavel Stehule (pavel.stehule@gmail.com) wrote:
> 2017-01-30 14:46 GMT+01:00 Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>:
>
> > * Christoph Berg (christoph.berg@credativ.de) wrote:
> > > Re: Daniel Verite 2017-01-28 <74e7fd23-f5a9-488d-a8c4-
> > 1e0da674b27c@manitou-mail.org>
> > > > > Mysql's CLI client is using \G for this purpose, and adding the very
> > > > > same functionality to psql fits nicely into the set of existing
> > > > > backslash commands: \g sends the query buffer, \G will do exactly the
> > > > > same as \g (including parameters), but forces expanded output just
> > for
> > > > > this query.
> > > >
> > > > +1 for the functionality but should we choose to ignore the comparison
> > > > to mysql, I'd suggest \gx for the name.
> > >
> > > IMHO \G is a tad easier to type than \gx, though the difference isn't
> > > huge, so I would be fine with either. But do we really want to choose
> > > something different just because MySQL is using it? \G will be much
> > > easier to explain to existing users (both people coming from MySQL to
> > > PostgreSQL, and PostgreSQL users doing a detour into foreign
> > > territory), and it would be one difference less to have to care about
> > > when typing on the CLIs.
> > >
> > > +1 on \G.
> >
> > Agreed, +1 on \G and with the above argument- why in the world would we
> > want to avoid using \G just because MySQL uses it?
> >
>
> The argument so MySQL uses it is not good. But \gx respect convention and
> it is little bit more descriptive.
>
> The difference is minor - I prefer \gx due consistency with Postgres. I
> don't know much MySQL people who use a terminal.
This particular bike-shedding really doesn't seem to be terribly useful
or sensible, to me. \gx isn't "consistent" or "descriptive", frankly.
If anything, 'x' as the second character, today, implies "extension" as
it's used that way by \dx.
Let's go with \G and be done with it.
Thanks!
Stephen