On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 08:22:40AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > > This particular bike-shedding really doesn't seem to be terribly useful > > > or sensible, to me. \gx isn't "consistent" or "descriptive", frankly. > > > > Why not? To me it reads as "\g with an x option". The "x" refers to > > the implied "\x", so it's not an arbitrary choice at all. > > > > The main problem I see with \G is that it's a dead end. If somebody > > comes along next year and says "I'd like a variant of \g with some other > > frammish", what will we do? There are no more case variants to use. > > > > In short, really the direction this ought to go in is \g[options] [file] > > which is perfectly consistent with precedents in psql such as \d. > > But there isn't any place where we've decided that upper case means > > a variant of a lower case command. > > > > +1
+1 from me, too, for what it's worth. If we're expanding the meanings of \g, let's do it with at least some eye to future expansions. Best, David. -- David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
