On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:

> Tom,
> * 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.
> That's not how '\dx' works, as I pointed out, so I don't see having the
> second character being 'x' to imply "\x mode" makes sense.

​It makes perfect sense ... it just not something that we've had the option
to do before (no, I haven't tried to figure out if we've missed an
opportunity or two here).​


without actual consistency across commands which take 'x'
> as a sub-command I don't see the 'descriptive' argument as holding much
> weight either
> ​.

​Arguing that something is mnemonic doesn't require any precedence - though
one could wish for better uses of mnemonic naming choices for past and
future items.

In scripting uses of psql I could see wanting to use "\gx" and, say "\gn"
(i.e., always output in non-expanded mode) instead of ";" so that for any
given query I can specify the exact layout I care about and don't have to
jump through hoops to toggle \x back and forth.

Limiting consideration of the use-case of this feature to interactive use
is, IMHO, a mistake.  In the copious use of psql scripting that I do I
would find both options I named above to be useful to directly and
concisely communicate the display intent of each query I execute.

David J.

Reply via email to