"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 match
