From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Daniel Verite" <daniel@manitou-mail.org>
cc: "Christoph Berg" <christoph.berg@credativ.de>,
        "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: One-shot expanded output in psql using \G
In-reply-to: <7c9af633-cbaa-4288-8efa-15dcfdf7094b@manitou-mail.org>
References: <7c9af633-cbaa-4288-8efa-15dcfdf7094b@manitou-mail.org>
Comments: In-reply-to "Daniel Verite" <daniel@manitou-mail.org>
	message dated "Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:45:41 +0100"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <23621.1485788402.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:00:02 -0500
Message-ID: <23622.1485788402@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

"Daniel Verite" <daniel@manitou-mail.org> writes:
>> \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.

> That's a good argument, but if it's pitted against psql's
> consistency with itself, I'd expect the latter to win.

FWIW, \gx makes sense to me as well, particularly if we make it a
complete extension of \g and allow an optional target file name.
Does that functionality exist in mysql's \G ?

			regards, tom lane


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