Re: csv format for psql

2018-03-30 0:15 GMT+02:00 David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>:

> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 7:30 AM, Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>
> wrote:
>
>> Personally I think the benefit of sharing fieldsep is not worth these
>> problems, but I'm waiting for the discussion to continue with
>> more opinions.
>
>
> ​Apologies in advance if I mis-represent someone's position.​
>
> ​It seems like having a dedicated option is the consensus opinion. Daniel
> (the original author) and I both prefer it, Pavel will accept it. Fabien​
> is opposed.
>
> Peter E. was opposed, wanting to leverage both fieldsep and recordsep, but
> hasn't chimed in recently. His opinion at this point might push this over
> the edge since he is also a committer.
>
> I would probably suggest maybe just calling it "\pset separator" to match
> the "S" in "cSv" and not have any name overlap with the fieldsep variable
> used with unaligned mode. The user will have to learn anything and being
> more distinct should help the process. We would not consult recordsep
> though the end-of-line choice should be platform dependent.
>

-1. The difference between fieldsep and separator is not clear, and the
relation between separator and csv is not clean too.

fieldsep_csv or csv_fieldsep is not nice, but it is clear.

Regards

Pavel

>
> David J.
>
>