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

Re: Concurrent psql patch

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: "Jim Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, "pgsql-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Concurrent psql patch
Date: 2007-05-13 18:54:22
Message-ID: 87odko7dwh.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
"David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:

>> I was originally thinking \c1, \c2, ... for \cswitch and \c& for
>> \cnowait. I'm not sure if going for cryptic short commands is better
>> or worse here.
>
> +1 for \c1, \c2, etc.
>
> 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... And unlike the
shell you can't usefully do anything more in the current session while the
command is in the background, you have to manually switch sessions before
issuing subsequent commands.

-- 
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2007-05-13 20:46:41
Subject: Re: Performance monitoring
Previous:From: Greg SmithDate: 2007-05-13 18:54:14
Subject: Re: Automatic adjustment of bgwriter_lru_maxpages

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2007-05-13 20:46:41
Subject: Re: Performance monitoring
Previous:From: Greg SmithDate: 2007-05-13 18:54:14
Subject: Re: Automatic adjustment of bgwriter_lru_maxpages

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