2017-01-30 14:46 GMT+01:00 Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net>: > * 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? >
The argument so MySQL uses it is not good. But \gx respect convention and it is little bit more descriptive. The difference is minor - I prefer \gx due consistency with Postgres. I don't know much MySQL people who use a terminal. Regards Pavel > > Thanks! > > Stephen >
