"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?

It's an interesting idea since you'll inevitably have to switch connections.
If you issue a second query it'll forces the session to wait for the results.
(It doesn't seem like there's any point in keeping a queue of pending queries
per session.)

However we do still need a command to switch back anyways so there doesn't
seem to be any advantage in combining the two.

  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not

Reply via email to