Re: One-shot expanded output in psql using \G
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>,
Christoph Berg <christoph.berg@credativ.de>,
Daniel Verite <daniel@manitou-mail.org>,
PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-01-30T15:14:36Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
psql: Fix \gx when FETCH_COUNT is used
- 0cdc3e47bea4 11.0 landed
- 51d0fa8ed93f 10.0 landed
-
psql: Add \gx command
- b2678efd43f1 10.0 landed
Stephen Frost <sfrost@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. regards, tom lane