Re: [HACKERS] One-shot expanded output in psql using \G

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От David G. Johnston
Тема Re: [HACKERS] One-shot expanded output in psql using \G
Дата
Msg-id CAKFQuwasriva00vRe9f0TH9=FsVa5ejJDwuFaJF6rNwYrDw=ZA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] One-shot expanded output in psql using \G  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] One-shot expanded output in psql using \G  (David Fetter <david@fetter.org>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.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

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Christoph Berg
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] One-shot expanded output in psql using \G
Следующее
От: Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2