Re: [GENERAL] libpq confusion

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Igor Korot
Тема Re: [GENERAL] libpq confusion
Дата
Msg-id CA+FnnTymh17F340HKugEzc2yv45MzyWNf4H2vZd2KuGOuOsUEA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [GENERAL] libpq confusion  (John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com>)
Ответы Re: [GENERAL] libpq confusion  (Thomas Delrue <thomas@epistulae.net>)
Список pgsql-general
Thx.
So it is referring to the command not a "command returning no data". ;-)

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:42 PM, John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> wrote:
> On 9/20/2017 10:34 AM, Igor Korot wrote:
>
> >From the documentation:
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/libpq-exec.html
>
> [quote]
> PGRES_COMMAND_OK
>
> Successful completion of a command returning no data.
> [/quote]
>
> No data = no rows, right?
>
> from that same page, a bit farther down, clarifying the potentially
> confusing wording.
>
> If the result status is PGRES_TUPLES_OK, then the functions described below
> can be used to retrieve the rows returned by the query. Note that a SELECT
> command that happens to retrieve zero rows still shows PGRES_TUPLES_OK.
> PGRES_COMMAND_OK is for commands that can never return rows (INSERT, UPDATE,
> etc.). A response of PGRES_EMPTY_QUERY might indicate a bug in the client
> software.
>
>
> --
> john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: John R Pierce
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [GENERAL] libpq confusion
Следующее
От: Jerry Sievers
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [GENERAL] Up to date conventional wisdom re max shared_buffer size?