I'd be happy with either... >> is UNIX-ese for append, which is OK, & if anyone uses command line MSDOS/ command prompt, it does the same there. But if we are to follow this logic, the \o > file should overwrite/create, etc... which is perhaps a bit excessive. I think that having \o write to a file and \o+ add to the file is simple & intutive for those folk who aren't familiar with the command line. The + means \o is adding to a file rather than just (over)writing a file, which I find pretty consistent with + in the other \ commands. However, I think introducing a ">>" into \ syntax is new & different & quite inconsistent with the other \ commands. But if either can be added I'll be happy :-) I'll just have to wait for Novell to formally support whichever version provides it, which shouldn't be much more than 3 years or so after it is released... At home I can use it straight away ... Thanks, Brent Wood Brent Wood DBA/GIS consultant NIWA, Wellington New Zealand >>> Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 02/19/09 10:19 AM >>> John R Pierce <pierce@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> "Brent Wood" <b.wood@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> Perhaps \o+ as a future fix for this? >> I'd prefer "\o >>file" but maybe I'm too steeped in unix-isms. > \o+ is reasonably consistent with the other \ command usages... Not really; none of the other commands interpret + as meaning "append to an existing file". They tend to take it as meaning "do something *in addition to* what you normally do", not to do something that is significantly different from the base command. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
