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 Tan||Date: 2007-05-14 02:36:57|
|Subject: Re: Seq scans roadmap|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-05-13 23:54:24|
|Subject: Re: Seq scans roadmap |
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: David Fetter||Date: 2007-05-14 01:56:34|
|Subject: On patching without write access to CVS|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-05-14 01:51:53|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] OS/X startup scripts |