"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 09:43:36AM -0400, Gregory Stark wrote:
I seem to recall there was a way to construct scenarios that returned
multiple
result set
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 09:43:36AM -0400, Gregory Stark wrote:
>>> I seem to recall there was a way to construct scenarios that returned
>>> multiple
>>> result sets via rules but I don't know how to arrange tha
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 09:43:36AM -0400, Gregory Stark wrote:
> >
> > I seem to recall there was a way to construct scenarios that returned
> > multiple
> > result sets via rules but I don't know how to arrange that. Anyone remember?
>
> An ALSO SE
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 09:43:36AM -0400, Gregory Stark wrote:
>
> I'm looking for corner cases where the concurrent psql patch doesn't handle
> things properly. I'm wondering about multiple result sets but I can't think of
> any cases where I can test them.
>
> If you submit multiple commands at
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 09:43:36AM -0400, Gregory Stark wrote:
>
> I'm looking for corner cases where the concurrent psql patch doesn't
> handle things properly. I'm wondering about multiple result sets but
> I can't think of any cases where I can test them.
>
> If you submit multiple commands at
I'm looking for corner cases where the concurrent psql patch doesn't handle
things properly. I'm wondering about multiple result sets but I can't think of
any cases where I can test them.
If you submit multiple commands at the psql prompt then psql seems to stop at
the first semicolon and send th
