| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: psql and \p\g |
| Date: | 1999-11-11 22:16:12 |
| Message-ID: | 16636.942358572@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> This was done to normalize the grammar a little bit (haha, very
>> funny). In particular it allows this sort of stuff:
>> => select * from foo \p \o out.txt \g \\ select * from foo 2 \x \g
>> etc.
>>
>> Is it *really* necessary to be able to omit the space?
> Yes, I believe it is, in the sense that many people are used to doing
> them together. Can a backslash trigger some separation of commands, or
> at least \p\g be recognized correctly. I don't think there are other
> meaningful combinations.
It'd probably be sufficient if backslash-commands that never take
parameters can be adjacent to a following backslash command.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Don Baccus | 1999-11-11 23:16:15 | Re: [HACKERS] Indent |
| Previous Message | Sergio A. Kessler | 1999-11-11 22:04:20 | Re: [INTERFACES] Error on db recovery.. |