David, * David G. Johnston (david.g.johns...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > * 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).
For my 2c, at least, I think we have.. I could certainly see it as very useful to have expanded output for \d and various \d sub-commands. How are we going to get there today? I don't see us re-defining what \dx means. With this, what we could do is define \D to be the same as \d but in expanded mode. For something like \dp, having a \Dp option could be pretty nice. > > 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. I can see the mnemonic argument, just not one based on some kind of consistency with what we've actually got implemented today. > 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. Ugh. I would *much* rather scripting be clear and set things up ahead of time instead of changing a would-be query-ending ';' into a backslash command to indicate the output format for the prior query. > 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. I'm afraid we might just have to disagree on our preferences for script writing then. In any case, as I said up-thread, using \G for this doesn't mean we couldn't make other \g options if people have a use-case for them. Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature