On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Kevin Grittner
>> <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
>> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I think this patch would only be adding to the confusion. ?When
>> >> PQgetResult() is called, we read enough data from the connection
>> >> to create and return one result object. ?It's true that this
>> >> doesn't necessarily detect an EOF, but IIUC calling PQgetResult()
>> >> again is just ONE way that you could trigger another read against
>> >> the socket, not the only one. ?I think it would also work to call
>> >> PQconsumeInput(), for example.
>> >
>> > I find it hard to reconcile the above with this:
>> >
>> > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/6493.1295882981@sss.pgh.pa.us
>> >
>> > and the quote from our documentation referenced here:
>> >
>> > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4D3D67600200002500039B2C@gw.=
wicourts.gov
>>
>> IIUC, Tom's point was that doing it that way would detect the error,
>> not that it was the ONLY way to detect the error.
>>
>> But it's easily testable.
>>
>> >> I think the real, underlying problem here is that Murray would
>> >> like a behavior change
>> >
>> > More than that I think he wants to be able to read the manual and
>> > know what will work, without spending loads of time getting in tune
>> > with The Tao of Libpq. ?Based on his initial reading of the docs he
>> > expected different behavior; that can be fixed by changing the
>> > behavior or changing the docs.
>>
>> That is why I suggested the type of doc correction that I thought
>> would be most helpful and accurate.
>
> Doc patch attached and applied. =A0I used "should be called" instead of
> "must".
I notice that your patch has exactly the same conceptual flaw I
complained about with respect to the previous version.
But I'm not sure it's worth arguing about...
--=20
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company