Re: [HACKERS] One-shot expanded output in psql using \G - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: [HACKERS] One-shot expanded output in psql using \G
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwasriva00vRe9f0TH9=FsVa5ejJDwuFaJF6rNwYrDw=ZA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] One-shot expanded output in psql using \G  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] One-shot expanded output in psql using \G  (David Fetter <david@fetter.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> This particular bike-shedding really doesn't seem to be terribly useful
> or sensible, to me.  \gx isn't "consistent" or "descriptive", frankly.

Why not?  To me it reads as "\g with an x option".  The "x" refers to
the implied "\x", so it's not an arbitrary choice at all.

The main problem I see with \G is that it's a dead end.  If somebody
comes along next year and says "I'd like a variant of \g with some other
frammish", what will we do?  There are no more case variants to use.

In short, really the direction this ought to go in is \g[options] [file]
which is perfectly consistent with precedents in psql such as \d.
But there isn't any place where we've decided that upper case means
a variant of a lower case command.

​+1

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Christoph Berg
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] One-shot expanded output in psql using \G
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2