Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mdILE-0006NV-H1 for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 20:37:40 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mdILD-0003D0-9E for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 20:37:39 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mdILC-0003CY-1p for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 20:37:39 +0000 Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.20]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mdIL7-00033U-5x for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 20:37:37 +0000 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26E7E3200E5E; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 16:37:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 20 Oct 2021 16:37:30 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:subject:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=A3XsJu8qE4LLrmMrrWpRq5spZP+DxRfkc1ZoJzc+j3I=; b=gOFWVrVp kI+SU0t7ShEDha2eSGa0O6JpzzbnED0EvywFDn8GTRlKRkQ0CpkzkoAkTJ4Me8ea wPCASu7hS6L0hMNLuBmB0J73XrBKBNPCqDg7FAb7eLcUIm/+T+4kp/TV3b/YsE8Y 8cO0UO1ox0p8XJTdHyKpPhmBkOBNDHxdHwmYwxktfCdhcoDBg0tVLnrgMqYgMSnJ jKEeLxuvpRUMol2jmPByz/aEtkZe2jtkzAQ/EBavusQqkTvLn4RQx4WGrh6d9tvj 8Vhq2JKu1PPXdsZ1vA9R324C9xe6M5fEYOQJF0gmFU4Q8L7U6fegtDcJbeQM5u1K PjZ6JEiX3UOn+w== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrvddvgedgudegiecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpeffhffvuffkgggtugfgjgesthekredttddtjeenucfhrhhomheptehlvhgr rhhoucfjvghrrhgvrhgruceorghlvhhhvghrrhgvsegrlhhvhhdrnhhoqdhiphdrohhrgh eqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudejveejffejveduudetvdekieeuiedtvdeileefkeev jedufeeguedvjefhueelnecuffhomhgrihhnpegvnhhtvghrphhrihhsvggusgdrtghomh enucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegrlhhv hhgvrhhrvgesrghlvhhhrdhnohdqihhprdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 16:37:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by perhan.alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4C7F32A0608; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 17:37:26 -0300 (-03) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 17:37:26 -0300 From: Alvaro Herrera To: "David G. Johnston" Cc: Daniel Verite , RekGRpth , PostgreSQL mailing lists Subject: Re: BUG #17235: PQsendQuery (with two sql) after PQenterPipelineMode cause ERROR Message-ID: <202110202037.nuhwiezuy3tt@alvherre.pgsql> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk On 2021-Oct-20, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Wednesday, October 20, 2021, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > > > Hmm, this seems to get into too much detail for that particular spot. > > Also, this paragraph is there precisely to let the reader know they can > > use the pipeline mode with older server versions. I don't disagree with > > rewording the paragraph in a similar way to what you outline in the > > first two phrases (not exactly that though), but the third one you > > propose seems a bit out of place. Why not add a few words to > > PQsendQuery() doc blurb instead? > > Kinda feel it should be mentioned generally as a limitation of the mode > just like not allowing sync calls. Specifically, in 34.5.1. I’m good with > 34.5 not covering that specific point. Yeah, seems good to me. > Whether or how to address the behavior of PQsendQuery in 34.5.1.1 to also > address its behavior due to this would be a further, independent, change. I think also mentioning in 34.5.1.1 after explaining in 34.5.1 is not very interesting; to me it sounds like 34.4 is a better place: "After successfully calling PQsendQuery, ... that the command is done. In pipeline mode, commands strings containing more than one SQL command are disallowed." or something like that. -- Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/