From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] psql -e and -n flags |
Date: | 2000-02-07 19:49:56 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0002062350010.13872-100000@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2000-02-06, Thomas Lockhart mentioned:
> > The suggestion I have is to offer the traditional behaviour with a single
> > -e flag, so there's little change for anyone switching from <7.0, and the
> > "full" echo mode with two -e flags. I'd then change the flags in the
> > regression drivers to -e -e. Comments? Better ideas?
>
> Hmm. imho having a *count* of switch options being significant is the
> wrong way to go. It gets in the way of things like
>
> # alias ps psql -e
> # ps -e postgres
>
> where someone has defined a "convenience" alias for everyone and
> someone else uses it later. Also, it is a style of switch invocation
> not appearing elsewhere afaik.
I don't like it either, but I wasn't sure of a better way.
>
> I'd suggest a switch style like "-ee" or "-eb" (backend) or "-ev"
> (verbatim) or ??? Comments?
Well that is an option style that doesn't appear anywhere either other
than perhaps find(1). getopt() would read "-ee" exactly as "-e -e", a
behaviour which conforms to POSIX and GNU and ROW (rest of world).
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-02-07 19:50:10 | Re: [HACKERS] psql -e and -n flags |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-02-07 19:49:42 | Re: [HACKERS] psql -e and -n flags |