Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:46:08 -0500
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Christoph Berg <christoph.berg@credativ.de>,
	Daniel Verite <daniel@manitou-mail.org>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: One-shot expanded output in psql using \G
Message-ID: <20170130134608.GA9812@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <20170127132737.6skslelaf4txs6iw@msg.credativ.de>
 <74e7fd23-f5a9-488d-a8c4-1e0da674b27c@manitou-mail.org>
 <20170130101424.fo4knpn4blaohazk@msg.df7cb.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LW+kzRL+sxph+mKH"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170130101424.fo4knpn4blaohazk@msg.df7cb.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org


--LW+kzRL+sxph+mKH
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Christoph Berg (christoph.berg@credativ.de) wrote:
> Re: Daniel Verite 2017-01-28 <74e7fd23-f5a9-488d-a8c4-1e0da674b27c@manito=
u-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.
> >=20
> > +1 for the functionality but should we choose to ignore the comparison
> > to mysql, I'd suggest \gx for the name.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> +1 on \G.

Agreed, +1 on \G and with the above argument- why in the world would we
want to avoid using \G just because MySQL uses it?

Thanks!

Stephen

--LW+kzRL+sxph+mKH
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=s186
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--LW+kzRL+sxph+mKH--