Shane Ambler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > +1 on the \g& but I would reverse the syntax - > \g& conn1 CERATE INDEX...;
No, not good. If the command requires multiple lines then this creates an action-at-a-distance behavior. Thought experiment: what would you expect here: \g& conn1 CREATE INDEX z (<oops, made a mistake> \r CREATE INDEX q ...; And whichever behavior you'd "expect", how would you get the other one when you needed it? Hidden state sucks. (Yeah, this argument probably appeals to people who like RPN calculators more than those who don't...) psql's established behavior is that \g is issued after the command it affects, and we should not change that. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers