Re: updated patch for selecting large results sets in

> > > I am confused. I assume \g and ; should be affected, like Peter says.
> > > Tom, what *every* command are you talking about? You mean \d?
> >
> > Like I said, I thought we were intending to modify \g's behavior only;
> > that was certainly the implication of the discussion of "\gc".

At some point you OKed the "\g and ;" proposal.
I admit I was quick adding the "and ;" part, but it seemed so natural
once we agreed on using a variable.

> OK, got it. I just don't see the value to doing \g and not ;. I think
> the \gc case was a hack when he didn't have \set. Now that we have
> \set, we should be consistent.

I agree with this statement.

If we have a variable that switches just between two versions of \g,
we could have gone with using \u (or whatever) in the first place.

In the mean time I have been converted by the variable camp, and
I think the variable should change "\g" and ";" together, consistently.

If we find we can't live with the performance overhead of that
if(FETCH_COUNT), it is still not clear why we would be better
off moving it into the \g code path only.

Is it because presumably \g is used less often in existing psql scripts?

Bye, Chris.

--

Chris Mair
http://www.1006.org