Re: BUG #5837: PQstatus() fails to report lost connection
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #5837: PQstatus() fails to report lost connection |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTim4X1ACvODZkgoAbCii70e6qRHJ_vBO0+LBfRbq@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #5837: PQstatus() fails to report lost connection (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #5837: PQstatus() fails to report lost
connection
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
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
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: