Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 11:14:25 +0100
From: Christoph Berg <christoph.berg@credativ.de>
To: Daniel Verite <daniel@manitou-mail.org>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: One-shot expanded output in psql using \G
Message-ID: <20170130101424.fo4knpn4blaohazk@msg.df7cb.de>
Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Berg <christoph.berg@credativ.de>,
	Daniel Verite <daniel@manitou-mail.org>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <20170127132737.6skslelaf4txs6iw@msg.credativ.de>
 <74e7fd23-f5a9-488d-a8c4-1e0da674b27c@manitou-mail.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <74e7fd23-f5a9-488d-a8c4-1e0da674b27c@manitou-mail.org>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20161126 (1.7.1)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Re: Daniel Verite 2017-01-28 <74e7fd23-f5a9-488d-a8c4-1e0da674b27c@manitou-mail.org>
> > Mysql's CLI client is using \G for this purpose, and adding the very
> > same functionality to psql fits nicely into the set of existing
> > backslash commands: \g sends the query buffer, \G will do exactly the
> > same as \g (including parameters), but forces expanded output just for
> > this query.
> 
> +1 for the functionality but should we choose to ignore the comparison
> to mysql, I'd suggest \gx for the name.

IMHO \G is a tad easier to type than \gx, though the difference isn't
huge, so I would be fine with either. But do we really want to choose
something different just because MySQL is using it? \G will be much
easier to explain to existing users (both people coming from MySQL to
PostgreSQL, and PostgreSQL users doing a detour into foreign
territory), and it would be one difference less to have to care about
when typing on the CLIs.

+1 on \G.

Christoph


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers