Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Bruce Momjian escribi?: > > > Obviously you have expections of how wrapping should behave. Please > > name me an application that has a wrapped mode that has the output to a > > file wrap based on the screen width? It isn't 'ls -C'. > > Why would we need to imitate what other apps do? What we need to > investigate is use cases, and how do we cater for each one, making it > easy for the most common while at the same time making it not impossible > for the most obscure. > > There is no point in doing things in a certain way just because others > do the same. Are you going to argue that we need to make the server > crash from time to time because other systems do that too? > > We came up with dollar quoting which is a completely novel idea AFAIK. > Why can't we come up with other useful, novel designs?
Your argument about crashing above seems like reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction). My point was that the poster was saying he expected the file/pipe output to honor the screen width on output, so I asked him for an example of why he had that expectation --- that seems logical. Perhaps it is only to be consistent with other psql behavior. FYI, ls -C actually wraps to 72(?) unless you specify another width, so one possible behavior would be for \pset wrapped to wrap to 72 for file/pipe unless you set \pset columns. That might make the "I want it always to wrap" group happier, but not the "wrapped shouldn't affect file/pipe". I have not heard anyone explain why the later behavior is bad, especially if we default to a width of 72 rather than the screen width. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers