Re: Using PQsocketPoll() for PIPELINE mode

From: Dominique Devienne <ddevienne(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Using PQsocketPoll() for PIPELINE mode
Date: 2024-08-27 10:23:52
Message-ID: CAFCRh--frt-aqnMo2F619FK6sU=3RJkxFRoQ8P8i5mdieQtpOQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 2:50 PM Dominique Devienne <ddevienne(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi. I've now used successfully the new PQsocketPoll() API
> in the context of waiting for notifications, using beta2 and 3.
>
> But now I'm looking into using it in the context of PIPELINE mode.
> Where I suppose both forRead and forWrite are 1, but the return
> code only indicates whether the condition is met. The doc says nothing
> about OR or AND semantic, when both forRead and forWrite are true.
>
> Perhaps it's deemed obvious from the use of select() or poll()?
> Or is one supposed to call it once with forRead=forWrite=1 and
> a timeout, then call it again twice with just one forFlag set and
> a 0 timeout, to know the "details" about which "side" is ready?
>
> Or hasn't this use case been considered for PQsocketPoll(),
> and thus the current return code isn't has precise as it could be?
>
> Thanks for any precisions, --DD

Hi. No answers. Was it wrong timing (vacations) or
is something wrong with my questions? Thanks, --DD

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2024-08-27 11:03:00 Re: Significant Execution Time Difference Between PG13.14 and PG16.4 for Query on information_schema Tables.
Previous Message David Rowley 2024-08-27 10:14:07 Re: Significant Execution Time Difference Between PG13.14 and PG16.4 for Query on information_schema Tables.