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

Re: Concurrent psql patch

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Jim Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
Cc: "pgsql-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Concurrent psql patch
Date: 2007-05-13 13:39:45
Message-ID: 87sla07sgu.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
"Jim Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:

> I don't see how we could make the names shorter without moving away from a
> backslash command (which I'm guessing would be painful).
>
> Assuming we're stuck with a backslash command \cs[witch] and \cn
> [owait] seem to be about as good as we could get.

I don't have \cs or \cn set up as abbreviations. 

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.

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


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2007-05-13 15:23:01
Subject: Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji?
Previous:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2007-05-13 13:20:40
Subject: pg_standby question

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2007-05-13 15:37:01
Subject: Re: Performance monitoring
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-05-13 11:45:17
Subject: Re: ECPG patch to use prepare for improved performance

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