Re: Appending \o output instead of overwriting the output file
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 <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 02/18/09 7:46 PM >>>
"Brent Wood" <b.wood@niwa.co.nz> 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...
regards, tom lane
NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd.
"Brent Wood" <b.wood@niwa.co.nz> 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
Tom Lane wrote:
"Brent Wood" <b.wood@niwa.co.nz> 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...
John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
"Brent Wood" <b.wood@niwa.co.nz> 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
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@sss.pgh.pa.us> 02/19/09 10:19 AM >>>
John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
"Brent Wood" <b.wood@niwa.co.nz> 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@postgresql.org)
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.
Import Notes
Resolved by subject fallback
On 2009-02-18, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
"Brent Wood" <b.wood@niwa.co.nz> 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?)
Tom Lane wrote:
"Brent Wood" <b.wood@niwa.co.nz> 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 Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
I didn't know you had time to look at these.. :)
Geoffrey wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
"Brent Wood" <b.wood@niwa.co.nz> 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, GeoffreyThose who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
--
Regards,
Barbara Stephenson
EDI Specialist/Programmer
Turbo, division of OHL
2251 Jesse Jewell Pkwy
Gainesville, GA 30507
tel: (678)989-3020 fax: (404)935-6171
barbara@turbocorp.com
www.ohl.com
On Feb 19, 2009, at 3:30 AM, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2009-02-18, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
"Brent Wood" <b.wood@niwa.co.nz> 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?)
I like that. Specifying other file descriptors (e.g. 2>) and
redirecting output from on fd to another (#>&) would be nice.
Erik Jones, Database Administrator
Engine Yard
Support, Scalability, Reliability
866.518.9273 x 260
Location: US/Pacific
IRC: mage2k