Re: Concurrent psql API - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Concurrent psql API
Date
Msg-id 3332.1207847057@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Concurrent psql API  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> "Csaba Nagy" <nagy@ecircle-ag.com> writes:
>> For interactive use in the above mentioned scenario you can use the
>> 'screen' command and start as many psqls as needed

> Sure, or you could just start multiple xterms or emacs shell buffers 
> (my preferred setup).

Yeah, that's an awfully good point, and I have to admit I'd generally
prefer multiple xterms too.

> But I'm sure there are people who would prefer C-z too.

AFAICT, supporting C-z will add a pretty significant increment of
definitional complexity, implementation complexity, and portability
risks to what otherwise could be a relatively small patch.  I don't
want to buy into that just because "some people might use it".

I note also that if we start trapping C-z, it would stop working
for what it works for now, namely suspending psql so you can do
something else in that window.

So, +1 for thinking about this entirely as a scripting feature.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] libpq type system 0.9a
Next
From: Andrew Chernow
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] libpq type system 0.9a