* Christoph Berg (christoph.b...@credativ.de) wrote: > Re: Daniel Verite 2017-01-28 > <74e7fd23-f5a9-488d-a8c4-1e0da674b...@manitou-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. > > > > +1 for the functionality but should we choose to ignore the comparison > > 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? Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature