Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: FE/BE protocol oddity

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: FE/BE protocol oddity
Date: 2001-07-06 18:33:36
Message-ID: 17688.994444416@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> I guess there is sort of a point there.  So I'm leaning towards adding a
> "startup complete" flag somewhere in PGconn and simply fix up
> closePGconn().

I think you can use the conn->status field; you shouldn't need a new
flag, just test whether status is CONNECTION_OK or not.

> Seriously, in the worst case we'll get EINVAL.

So you'll just ignore an error?  Okay, that'll probably work.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-07-06 18:42:39
Subject: Re: Vacuum and Transactions
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-07-06 18:29:03
Subject: Rule action ordering

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group