On Feb 19, 2009, at 3:30 AM, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2009-02-18, Tom Lane wrote:
John R Pierce writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
"Brent Wood" 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
I didn't know you had time to look at these.. :)
Geoffrey wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Brent Wood" writes:
> >> Perhaps \o+ as a future fix for this?
> >
> > I'd prefer "\o >>file" but maybe I'm too steeped in unix-isms.
> >
> >regards, tom lane
>
> +1
>
>
> --
> Until later, Geoffrey
>
>
Tom Lane wrote:
"Brent Wood" writes:
Perhaps \o+ as a future fix for this?
I'd prefer "\o >>file" but maybe I'm too steeped in unix-isms.
regards, tom lane
+1
--
Until later, Geoffrey
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safet
On 2009-02-18, Tom Lane wrote:
> John R Pierce writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> "Brent Wood" 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;
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 w
John R Pierce writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Brent Wood" 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 me
Tom Lane wrote:
"Brent Wood" 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...
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To ma
"Brent Wood" writes:
> Perhaps \o+ as a future fix for this?
I'd prefer "\o >>file" but maybe I'm too steeped in unix-isms.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresq
Thanks Tom,
That will do trick.
Perhaps \o+ as a future fix for this?
Brent
Brent Wood
DBA/GIS consultant
NIWA, Wellington
New Zealand
>>> Tom Lane 02/18/09 7:46 PM >>>
"Brent Wood" writes:
> Using \o to redirect output to a file from the psql command line, is there
> any way to have the ou
Simply use '\o filename' as you are doing so. Write the queries as much as you
want. It will automatically append the result in the specified file. Untill you
use '\o' command again with new file name.
"Brent Wood" writes:
> Using \o to redirect output to a file from the psql command line, is there
> any way to have the output appended to the output file, rather than
> overwriting it?
This is pretty grotty, but it works:
\o | cat >>target
Maybe we should provide another way in future...
Hi,
Using \o to redirect output to a file from the psql command line, is there any
way to have the output appended to the output file, rather than overwriting it?
Thanks,
Brent Woood
Brent Wood
DBA/GIS consultant
NIWA, Wellington
New Zealand
NIWA is the trading name of the National Institut
12 matches
Mail list logo