Re: BUG #5837: PQstatus() fails to report lost connection

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Kevin Grittner
> >> <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> >> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> >> I think this patch would only be adding to the confusion. ?When
> >> >> PQgetResult() is called, we read enough data from the connection
> >> >> to create and return one result object. ?It's true that this
> >> >> doesn't necessarily detect an EOF, but IIUC calling PQgetResult()
> >> >> again is just ONE way that you could trigger another read against
> >> >> the socket, not the only one. ?I think it would also work to call
> >> >> PQconsumeInput(), for example.
> >> >
> >> > I find it hard to reconcile the above with this:
> >> >
> >> > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/6493.1295882981@sss.pgh.pa.us
> >> >
> >> > and the quote from our documentation referenced here:
> >> >
> >> > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4D3D67600200002500039B2C@gw.wicourts.gov
> >>
> >> IIUC, Tom's point was that doing it that way would detect the error,
> >> not that it was the ONLY way to detect the error.
> >>
> >> But it's easily testable.
> >>
> >> >> I think the real, underlying problem here is that Murray would
> >> >> like a behavior change
> >> >
> >> > More than that I think he wants to be able to read the manual and
> >> > know what will work, without spending loads of time getting in tune
> >> > with The Tao of Libpq. ?Based on his initial reading of the docs he
> >> > expected different behavior; that can be fixed by changing the
> >> > behavior or changing the docs.
> >>
> >> That is why I suggested the type of doc correction that I thought
> >> would be most helpful and accurate.
> >
> > Doc patch attached and applied. ?I used "should be called" instead of
> > "must".
>
> I notice that your patch has exactly the same conceptual flaw I
> complained about with respect to the previous version.
>
> But I'm not sure it's worth arguing about...

You mentioned that other functions could be used, so I said "should"
rather than "must". Other ideas?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +