Re: Question about non-blocking mode in libpq

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Question about non-blocking mode in libpq
Date: 2023-10-31 21:16:56
Message-ID: ZUFuyJtiEXRQE8zi@momjian.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 01:58:34PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > I modified your patch, attached, that I would like to apply to all
> > supported versions.
>
> This seems to have lost the information about what to do if these
> functions fail. I think probably the only possible failure cause
> in nonblock mode is "unable to enlarge the buffer because OOM",
> but that's certainly not the same thing as "cannot fail".

Okay, I added "_successful_ calls", attached. I am not sure what else
to add.

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

Only you can decide what is important to you.

Attachment Content-Type Size
block.diff text/x-diff 828 bytes

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Christensen 2023-10-31 21:23:17 Re: Moving forward with TDE [PATCH v3]
Previous Message Matthias van de Meent 2023-10-31 21:12:26 btree: implement dynamic prefix truncation (was: Improving btree performance through specializing by key shape, take 2)