| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: psql: psql variable BACKEND_PID |
| Date: | 2023-02-11 21:05:03 |
| Message-ID: | 20230211210503.kqvno4iplx6lnalx@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2023-02-04 15:35:58 -0500, Corey Huinker wrote:
> This effectively makes the %p prompt (which I use in the example above) the
> same as %:BACKEND_PID: and we may want to note that in the documentation.
I don't really see much of a point in noting this in the doc. I don't know in
what situation a user would be helped by reading
+ This substitution is almost equal to using <literal>%:BACKEND_PID:</literal>,
+ but it is safer, because psql variable can be overwriten or unset.
or just about any reformulation of that?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-02-11 21:36:51 | Re: refactoring relation extension and BufferAlloc(), faster COPY |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2023-02-11 21:03:56 | Re: refactoring relation extension and BufferAlloc(), faster COPY |