| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Daniel Verite" <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Christoph Berg" <christoph(dot)berg(at)credativ(dot)de>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: One-shot expanded output in psql using \G |
| Date: | 2017-01-30 15:00:02 |
| Message-ID: | 23622.1485788402@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Daniel Verite" <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> writes:
>> \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.
> That's a good argument, but if it's pitted against psql's
> consistency with itself, I'd expect the latter to win.
FWIW, \gx makes sense to me as well, particularly if we make it a
complete extension of \g and allow an optional target file name.
Does that functionality exist in mysql's \G ?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-01-30 15:04:59 | Re: One-shot expanded output in psql using \G |
| Previous Message | Daniel Verite | 2017-01-30 14:45:41 | Re: One-shot expanded output in psql using \G |