| From: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: trailing comment ghost-timing |
| Date: | 2013-12-24 02:40:58 |
| Message-ID: | 52B8F43A.4050504@proxel.se |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/24/2013 03:17 AM, David Johnston wrote:
> I need to be convinced that the server should not just silently ignore
> trailing comments. I'd consider an exception if the only text sent is a
> comment ( in such a case we should throw an error ) but if valid commands
> are sent and there is just some comment text at the end it should be ignored
> the same as if the comments were embedded in the middle of the query text.
>
> I've encountered other clients that output phantom results in this situation
> and solving it at the server seems worthwhile so client applications do not
> have to care.
>
> In the example case, I think, putting the comment before the command results
> in only one timing. This inconsistency is a symptom of this situation being
> handled incorrectly.
It is not sent to the server as a trailing comment. The following file
is sent to the server like this.
File:
/**/;
/**/
Commands:
PQexec(..., "/**/;");
PQexec(..., "/**/");
If this has to be fixed it should be in the client. I think people would
complain if we broke the API by starting to throw an exception on PQexec
with a string containing no actual query.
--
Andreas Karlsson
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Euler Taveira | 2013-12-24 02:44:53 | Re: Planning time in explain/explain analyze |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-24 02:33:04 | Re: Planning time in explain/explain analyze |