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

Re: Concurrent psql patch

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-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

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: CK TanDate: 2007-05-14 02:36:57
Subject: Re: Seq scans roadmap
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-05-13 23:54:24
Subject: Re: Seq scans roadmap

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: David FetterDate: 2007-05-14 01:56:34
Subject: On patching without write access to CVS
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-05-14 01:51:53
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] OS/X startup scripts

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group