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

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, "Murray S(dot) Kucherawy" <msk(at)cloudmark(dot)com>, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: BUG #5837: PQstatus() fails to report lost connection
Date: 2011-03-11 14:32:48
Message-ID: AANLkTim4X1ACvODZkgoAbCii70e6qRHJ_vBO0+LBfRbq@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

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...

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-03-11 14:33:50 Re: BUG #5814: documentation bug
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2011-03-11 14:31:39 Re: Problem with ALTER TABLE - occasional "tuple concurrently updated"