On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
More like \once ... any SQL command or meta command here ...
if we want to extend the scripting language. But I'd
There's one part of this that's still fuzzy in the spec I'd like to
clarify, if nothing else than for my own memory's sake--as the person
most likely to review a random pgbench patch. Simon gave an example
like this:
pgbench -x SET synchronous_commit = off
All are agreed this should take
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
New -x option for pgbench executes the given command once after
connection of each session.
This seems rather poorly designed, mainly because there's no reason to
think that a single command would be sufficient.
What would make more sense to me is to
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of jue ene 12 12:26:49 -0300 2012:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
New -x option for pgbench executes the given command once after
connection of each session.
This seems rather poorly designed, mainly because there's no reason to
think that a
On 12.01.2012 17:26, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggssi...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
New -x option for pgbench executes the given command once after
connection of each session.
If it's just for SET, you could just put the GUCs in postgresql.conf.
This seems rather poorly designed, mainly because
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
On 12.01.2012 17:26, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggssi...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
New -x option for pgbench executes the given command once after
connection of each session.
If it's just for SET, you could just put the GUCs in
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
New -x option for pgbench executes the given command once after
connection of each session.
This seems rather poorly designed, mainly because there's no reason to
think that a single
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
This seems rather poorly designed, mainly because there's no reason to
think that a single command would be sufficient.
It supports multiple commands via multi-statement requests
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
This seems rather poorly designed, mainly because there's no reason to
think that a single command would be
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I don't believe that works for multiple \set commands, which is the
more likely use-case for this; as noted upthread, executing SET here
is quite unnecessary since you can get that
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
More like \once ... any SQL command or meta command here ...
if we want to extend the scripting language. But I'd be perfectly happy
with a command-line switch that specifies a script file to be run once.
Once per
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
More like \once ... any SQL command or meta command here ...
if we want to extend the scripting language. But I'd be perfectly happy
with a command-line switch that specifies a script
On 12.01.2012 22:04, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggssi...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
More like \once ... any SQL command or meta command here ...
if we want to extend the scripting language. But I'd be perfectly happy
with a
13 matches
Mail list logo
