Re: Concurrent psql patch - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Concurrent psql patch
Date
Msg-id 23207.1179107701@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Concurrent psql patch  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Concurrent psql patch
List pgsql-patches
Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.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

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [DOCS] OS/X startup scripts
Next
From: David Fetter
Date:
Subject: On patching without write access to CVS