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 |
Subject: | Re: Pipeline mode and PQpipelineSync() |
Date: | 2021-06-23 11:03:52 |
Message-ID: | boris.20210623125826@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:
> On 2021-Jun-22, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > > So I think it would be useful to clarify the server behavior and
> > > specify it in the documentation.
> >
> > I'll see about improving the docs on these points.
>
> So I started to modify the second paragraph to indicate that the client
> would send data on PQflush/buffer full/PQpipelineSync, only to realize
> that the first paragraph already explains this. So I'm not sure if any
> changes are needed.
>
> Maybe your complaint is only based on disagreement about what does libpq
> do regarding queueing commands; and as far as I can tell in quick
> experimentation with libpq, it works as the docs state already.
I think one change that is definitely needed is to make it clear that
the PQpipelineSync() call is not optional.
I would also add a note saying that while the server starts processing
the pipeline immediately, it may buffer the results and the only way
to flush them out is to call PQpipelineSync().
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ranier Vilela | 2021-06-23 11:56:06 | Re: Assertion failure in HEAD and 13 after calling COMMIT in a stored proc |
Previous Message | Ajin Cherian | 2021-06-23 10:40:46 | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |