John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Brent Wood" <b.wood@niwa.co.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.
regards, tom lane