Re: Question regarding Sync message and unnamed portal

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Question regarding Sync message and unnamed portal
Дата
Msg-id 25298.1349105841@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Question regarding Sync message and unnamed portal  (Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.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



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: embedded list v3
Следующее
От: Stephen Frost
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list?