Re: One-shot expanded output in psql using \G

	Christoph Berg wrote:

> But do we really want to choose
> something different just because MySQL is using it?

That's not what I meant. If mysql wasn't using \G
I'd still suggest the name \gx because:

- it means the functionality of \g combined with \x so
semantically it makes sense.

- there is no precedent in psql that the upper-case version
of a meta-command as a variant of the lower-case version:
\C has nothing to do with \c, and \H nothing with \h, and
\T and \t are equally disconnected

- there hasn't been much use up to now of uppercase
meta-commands, C,T and H are the only ones I see in \?
\d[something] is crowded  with lots of "something", whereas \D is not
used at all. The pattern seems to be that uppercase is the exception.

FWIW I don't share the feeling that \G is easier to remember or type
than \gx.

> \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.

That's a good argument, but if it's pitted against psql's
consistency with itself, I'd expect the latter to win.

Best regards,
-- 
Daniel Vérité
PostgreSQL-powered mailer: http://www.manitou-mail.org
Twitter: @DanielVerite