Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> The right thing to use if you're trying to interleave portal executions
>> like that is Flush, not Sync.  Sync mainly adds a protocol
>> resynchronization point --- it's needed in case portal execution fails
>> partway through.  (In which case you'll have lost both portals in the
>> transaction abort anyway.)

> Thanks for the suggestion. However, problem with using Flush is,
> backend never sends "Ready for Query" until Sync is sent. For frontend
> program "Ready for query" is important because 1) client knows session
> state, 2) "Ready for query" is a command boundary as stated in
> document.

[ shrug... ]  RFQ is an acknowledgement of a sync point.  It's useful
for clients that are too lazy to keep track of the protocol state in
great detail --- but if you're trying to interleave execution of two
portals, you need to keep track.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: Question regarding Sync message and unnamed portal at 2012-10-01 05:04:00 from Tatsuo Ishii

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Stephen Frost	Date: 2012-10-01 16:06:19
	Subject: Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list?
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2012-10-01 15:33:01
	Subject: Re: embedded list v3