| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-05-13 23:05:18 | Re: Concurrent psql patch |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-05-13 22:35:13 | Re: Concurrent psql patch |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-13 22:49:39 | Re: OS/X startup scripts |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-05-13 22:35:13 | Re: Concurrent psql patch |