| From: | Boris Kolpackov <boris(at)codesynthesis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvaro(dot)herrera(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Subject: | Re: Pipeline mode and PQpipelineSync() |
| Date: | 2021-07-08 18:31:32 |
| Message-ID: | boris.20210708201732@codesynthesis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvaro(dot)herrera(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> To be honest, I am hesitant to changing the charter in that way; I fear
> it may have consequences I don't foresee. I think the workaround is not
> *that* bad.
Ok, fair enough. I've updated my code to account for this and it seems
to be working fine now.
> I'm having a bit of trouble documenting this. I modified the paragraph in the
> pipeline mode docs to read:
>
> <para>
> <function>PQisBusy</function>, <function>PQconsumeInput</function>, etc
> operate as normal when processing pipeline results. Note that if no
> queries are pending receipt of the corresponding results,
> <function>PQisBusy</function> returns 0.
> </para>
How about the following for the second sentence:
"In particular, a call to <function>PQisBusy</function> in the middle
of a pipeline returns 0 if all the results for queries issued so far
have been consumed."
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Lakhin | 2021-07-08 20:00:00 | Re: More time spending with "delete pending" |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-07-08 18:26:46 | Re: Replace remaining castNode(…, lfirst(…)) and friends calls with l*_node() |