Re: FE/BE protocol oddity

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: FE/BE protocol oddity
Date: 2001-07-06 18:33:36
Message-ID: 17688.994444416@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> I guess there is sort of a point there. So I'm leaning towards adding a
> "startup complete" flag somewhere in PGconn and simply fix up
> closePGconn().

I think you can use the conn->status field; you shouldn't need a new
flag, just test whether status is CONNECTION_OK or not.

> Seriously, in the worst case we'll get EINVAL.

So you'll just ignore an error? Okay, that'll probably work.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-07-06 18:42:39 Re: Vacuum and Transactions
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-07-06 18:29:03 Rule action ordering