Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:04:59 -0500
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: 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: <20170130150458.GC9812@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <20170127132737.6skslelaf4txs6iw@msg.credativ.de>
 <74e7fd23-f5a9-488d-a8c4-1e0da674b27c@manitou-mail.org>
 <20170130101424.fo4knpn4blaohazk@msg.df7cb.de>
 <20170130134608.GA9812@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <CAFj8pRDLr=exBc4QZg7POLZcGHNi539ibhVqmGzWctyPo0TZ7A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/ytLAFDP1e5uWU4z"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFj8pRDLr=exBc4QZg7POLZcGHNi539ibhVqmGzWctyPo0TZ7A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org


--/ytLAFDP1e5uWU4z
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Pavel Stehule (pavel.stehule@gmail.com) wrote:
> 2017-01-30 14:46 GMT+01:00 Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>:
>=20
> > * Christoph Berg (christoph.berg@credativ.de) wrote:
> > > 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 v=
ery
> > > > > 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 compari=
son
> > > > 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.
> >
> > 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?
> >
>=20
> The argument so MySQL uses it is not good. But \gx respect convention and
> it is little bit more descriptive.
>=20
> The difference is minor - I prefer \gx due consistency with Postgres. I
> don't know much MySQL people who use a terminal.

This particular bike-shedding really doesn't seem to be terribly useful
or sensible, to me.  \gx isn't "consistent" or "descriptive", frankly.

If anything, 'x' as the second character, today, implies "extension" as
it's used that way by \dx.

Let's go with \G and be done with it.

Thanks!

Stephen

--/ytLAFDP1e5uWU4z
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

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

--/ytLAFDP1e5uWU4z--