Re: PQputCopyEnd doesn't adhere to its API contract

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:52:14PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:03:36PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> > Perhaps the text should be like this:
> >> >
> >> > The result is 1 if the termination message was sent; or in nonblocking
> >> > mode, this may only indicate that the termination message was successfully
> >> > queued. (In nonblocking mode, to be certain that the data has been sent,
> >> > you should next wait for write-ready and call <function>PQflush</>,
> >> > repeating until it returns zero.) Zero indicates that the function could
> >> > not queue the termination message because of full buffers; this will only
> >> > happen in nonblocking mode. (In this case, wait for write-ready and try
> >> > the PQputCopyEnd call again.) If a hard error occurs, -1 is returned; you
> >> > can use <function>PQerrorMessage</function> to retrieve details.
> >>
> >> That looks pretty good. However, I'm realizing this isn't the only
> >> place where we probably need to clarify the language. Just to take
> >> one example near at hand, PQputCopyData may also return 1 when it's
> >> only queued the data; it seems to try even less hard than PQputCopyEnd
> >> to ensure that the data is actually sent.
> >
> > Uh, where are we on this?
>
> I think someone needs to take Tom's proposed language and make it into
> a patch. And figure out which other functions in the documentation
> need similar updates.

I have developed such a patch --- attached. I didn't see any other
mentions of blocking in the docs.

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

+ Everyone has their own god. +