| 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: | 2007-05-14 01:55:01 |
| Message-ID: | 23207.1179107701@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:
> So would you prefer \g& as Jim Nasby suggested? I hadn't even considered that
> previously since I'm not accustomed to using \g but it does seem kind of
> pretty. I normally use ; but I suppose there's nothing wrong with just
> declaring that asynchronous commands must be issued using \g& rather than use
> the semicolon to fire them off.
It makes sense to me... but what is the state of the session afterward?
Should this be combined with switching to another connection?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | CK Tan | 2007-05-14 02:36:57 | Re: Seq scans roadmap |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-13 23:54:24 | Re: Seq scans roadmap |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2007-05-14 01:56:34 | On patching without write access to CVS |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-14 01:51:53 | Re: [PATCHES] OS/X startup scripts |