Re: pgbench post-connection command

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgbench post-connection command
Date: 2012-01-12 16:50:25
Message-ID: CA+U5nM+pg2eGyBwxaFm4bn1KTDSn566-e8fWkOEPb9OBZ0_Diw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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
>> e.g.
>> -x "SET this = on; SET that = off"
>
> 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 behavior with
> "export PGOPTIONS".

OK, so you want...

\setonce <command>

or?

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Mead 2012-01-12 16:57:24 Re: IDLE in transaction introspection
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-01-12 16:33:26 Re: Remembering bug #6123