Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Concurrent psql patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Jim Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, "pgsql-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Concurrent psql patch
Date: 2007-05-13 22:44:02
Message-ID: 20669.1179096242@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
>> What's the reasoning behind \c&?  Does it "send things into the
>> background" the way & does in the shell?

> Sort of. It sends the *subsequent* command to the background...

That sounds just bizarre.  Existing backslash commands that do something
to a SQL command are typed *after* the command they affect (\g for
instance).  I don't think you should randomly change that.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2007-05-13 23:05:18
Subject: Re: Concurrent psql patch
Previous:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2007-05-13 22:35:13
Subject: Re: Concurrent psql patch

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-05-13 22:49:39
Subject: Re: OS/X startup scripts
Previous:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2007-05-13 22:35:13
Subject: Re: Concurrent psql patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group