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.

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:

Reply via email to