"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> "David Fetter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> What's the reasoning behind \c&? Does it "send things into the >>> background" the way & does in the shell? > >> Sort of. It sends the *subsequent* command to the background... > > That sounds just bizarre. Existing backslash commands that do something > to a SQL command are typed *after* the command they affect (\g for > instance). I don't think you should randomly change that.
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. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
