On 2009-02-18, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Yes, also if \o already supports | why not other plumbing symbols like >> and for completeness > (also possibly >& filedescriptor?) -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
