| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: csv format for psql |
| Date: | 2018-03-29 22:15:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZxZbL2JwH0won641ONKOfFQhwg6s+gkDDeUcji1k=Zpw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-03-29 22:16:55 | Re: Changing WAL Header to reduce contention during ReserveXLogInsertLocation() |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-03-29 21:58:15 | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |