From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Concurrent psql patch |
Date: | 2007-05-13 17:00:42 |
Message-ID: | 20070513170042.GA14860@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 02:39:45PM +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Jim Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
>
> > I don't see how we could make the names shorter without moving
> > away from a backslash command (which I'm guessing would be
> > painful).
> >
> > Assuming we're stuck with a backslash command \cs[witch] and \cn
> > [owait] seem to be about as good as we could get.
>
> I don't have \cs or \cn set up as abbreviations.
>
> I was originally thinking \c1, \c2, ... for \cswitch and \c& for
> \cnowait. I'm not sure if going for cryptic short commands is better
> or worse here.
+1 for \c1, \c2, etc.
What's the reasoning behind \c&? Does it "send things into the
background" the way & does in the shell?
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666
Skype: davidfetter
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-13 17:03:21 | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2007-05-13 16:28:53 | Re: pg_standby question (solved) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2007-05-13 18:54:14 | Re: Automatic adjustment of bgwriter_lru_maxpages |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-05-13 16:27:20 | Re: Automatic adjustment of bgwriter_lru_maxpages |