Thread: Re: Appending \o output instead of overwriting the output file
Thanks Tom,
That will do trick.
Perhaps \o+ as a future fix for this?
Brent
Brent Wood
DBA/GIS consultant
NIWA, Wellington
New Zealand
>>> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 02/18/09 7:46 PM >>>
"Brent Wood" <b.wood@niwa.co.nz> writes:
> Using \o to redirect output to a file from the psql command line, is there any way to have the output appended to the
outputfile, rather than overwriting it?
This is pretty grotty, but it works:
\o | cat >>target
Maybe we should provide another way in future...
regards, tom lane
NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd.
"Brent Wood" <b.wood@niwa.co.nz> writes:
> Perhaps \o+ as a future fix for this?
I'd prefer "\o >>file" but maybe I'm too steeped in unix-isms.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > "Brent Wood" <b.wood@niwa.co.nz> writes: > >> Perhaps \o+ as a future fix for this? >> > > I'd prefer "\o >>file" but maybe I'm too steeped in unix-isms. > > \o+ is reasonably consistent with the other \ command usages...
John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Brent Wood" <b.wood@niwa.co.nz> writes:
>>> Perhaps \o+ as a future fix for this?
>> I'd prefer "\o >>file" but maybe I'm too steeped in unix-isms.
> \o+ is reasonably consistent with the other \ command usages...
Not really; none of the other commands interpret + as meaning "append to
an existing file". They tend to take it as meaning "do something *in
addition to* what you normally do", not to do something that is
significantly different from the base command.
regards, tom lane
On 2009-02-18, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> "Brent Wood" <b.wood@niwa.co.nz> writes: >>>> Perhaps \o+ as a future fix for this? > >>> I'd prefer "\o >>file" but maybe I'm too steeped in unix-isms. > >> \o+ is reasonably consistent with the other \ command usages... > > Not really; none of the other commands interpret + as meaning "append to > an existing file". They tend to take it as meaning "do something *in > addition to* what you normally do", not to do something that is > significantly different from the base command. Yes, also if \o already supports | why not other plumbing symbols like >> and for completeness > (also possibly >& filedescriptor?)
Tom Lane wrote: > "Brent Wood" <b.wood@niwa.co.nz> writes: >> Perhaps \o+ as a future fix for this? > > I'd prefer "\o >>file" but maybe I'm too steeped in unix-isms. > > regards, tom lane +1 -- Until later, Geoffrey Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
I didn't know you had time to look at these.. :) Geoffrey wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > "Brent Wood" <b.wood@niwa.co.nz> writes: > >> Perhaps \o+ as a future fix for this? > > > > I'd prefer "\o >>file" but maybe I'm too steeped in unix-isms. > > > > regards, tom lane > > +1 > > > -- > Until later, Geoffrey > > Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little > temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. > - Benjamin Franklin -- Regards, Barbara Stephenson EDI Specialist/Programmer Turbo, division of OHL 2251 Jesse Jewell Pkwy Gainesville, GA 30507 tel: (678)989-3020 fax: (404)935-6171 barbara@turbocorp.com www.ohl.com
On Feb 19, 2009, at 3:30 AM, Jasen Betts wrote: > On 2009-02-18, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> writes: >>> Tom Lane wrote: >>>> "Brent Wood" <b.wood@niwa.co.nz> writes: >>>>> Perhaps \o+ as a future fix for this? >> >>>> I'd prefer "\o >>file" but maybe I'm too steeped in unix-isms. >> >>> \o+ is reasonably consistent with the other \ command usages... >> >> Not really; none of the other commands interpret + as meaning >> "append to >> an existing file". They tend to take it as meaning "do something *in >> addition to* what you normally do", not to do something that is >> significantly different from the base command. > > Yes, also if \o already supports | why not other plumbing symbols > like >> and for completeness > (also possibly >& filedescriptor?) I like that. Specifying other file descriptors (e.g. 2>) and redirecting output from on fd to another (#>&) would be nice. Erik Jones, Database Administrator Engine Yard Support, Scalability, Reliability 866.518.9273 x 260 Location: US/Pacific IRC: mage2k