I'd be happy with either...
>> is UNIX-ese for append, which is OK, & if anyone uses command line MSDOS/ command prompt, it does the same there.
Butif we are to follow this logic, the \o > file should overwrite/create, etc... which is perhaps a bit excessive.
I think that having \o write to a file and \o+ add to the file is simple & intutive for those folk who aren't familiar
withthe command line. The + means \o is adding to a file rather than just (over)writing a file, which I find pretty
consistentwith + in the other \ commands.
However, I think introducing a ">>" into \ syntax is new & different & quite inconsistent with the other \ commands.
But if either can be added I'll be happy :-) I'll just have to wait for Novell to formally support whichever version
providesit, which shouldn't be much more than 3 years or so after it is released... At home I can use it straight away
...
Thanks,
Brent Wood
Brent Wood
DBA/GIS consultant
NIWA, Wellington
New Zealand
>>> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 02/19/09 10:19 AM >>>
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
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd.