| From: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Call pqPipelineFlush from PQsendFlushRequest |
| Date: | 2024-02-01 22:33:49 |
| Message-ID: | CAGECzQTVLsLsgP2dHd53jaZyVnQqUo-Mryo2vtTDO8aQ2j2E0Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 at 21:00, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Note that the request is not itself flushed to the server automatically;
> use <function>PQflush</function> if necessary.
>
> Doesn't that require some rewording?
I agree that the current wording is slightly incorrect, but I think I
prefer we keep it this way. The fact that we actually DO flush when
some internal buffer is filled up seems more like an implementation
detail, than behavior that people should actually be depending upon.
And even knowing the actual behavior, still the only way to know that
your data is flushed is by calling PQflush (since a user has no way of
checking if we automatically flushed the internal buffer).
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Christensen | 2024-02-01 22:39:08 | Re: Adding comments to help understand psql hidden queries |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-02-01 21:51:02 | Re: Make COPY format extendable: Extract COPY TO format implementations |