| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Murray S(dot) Kucherawy" <msk(at)cloudmark(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #5837: PQstatus() fails to report lost connection |
| Date: | 2011-01-24 17:41:36 |
| Message-ID: | 9838.1295890896@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk(at)cloudmark(dot)com> writes:
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
>> This is complete nonsense. If you followed the documented method for
>> using PQgetResult -- ie, keep calling it till it returns NULL, rather
>> than assuming there will be a specific number of results --- then
>> PQstatus would show you the bad status afterwards.
> Your assertion here of "Read the result set to exhaustion, THEN check connection status to see if it was bad to begin with," can be politely described as counter-intuitive.
[ shrug... ] I guess if your intuition is that PQstatus should be
expected to intuit the failure of a call that hasn't happened yet,
then it's counter-intuitive.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-01-24 17:49:52 | Re: BUG #5837: PQstatus() fails to report lost connection |
| Previous Message | Murray S. Kucherawy | 2011-01-24 17:26:36 | Re: BUG #5837: PQstatus() fails to report lost connection |