MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFCRh-9R91Huzk2KFS8iKEo_eSXaZ0iAkGwx6LxfUexKzkeeRA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFCRh-9R91Huzk2KFS8iKEo_eSXaZ0iAkGwx6LxfUexKzkeeRA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dominique Devienne <ddevienne@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 12:23:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFCRh--frt-aqnMo2F619FK6sU=3RJkxFRoQ8P8i5mdieQtpOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Using PQsocketPoll() for PIPELINE mode
To: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFCRh--frt-aqnMo2F619FK6sU%3D3RJkxFRoQ8P8i5mdieQtpOQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 2:50=E2=80=AFPM Dominique Devienne <ddevienne@gmail=
.com> wrote:
> Hi. I've now used successfully the new PQsocketPoll() API
> in the context of waiting for notifications, using beta2 and 3.
>
> But now I'm looking into using it in the context of PIPELINE mode.
> Where I suppose both forRead and forWrite are 1, but the return
> code only indicates whether the condition is met. The doc says nothing
> about OR or AND semantic, when both forRead and forWrite are true.
>
> Perhaps it's deemed obvious from the use of select() or poll()?
> Or is one supposed to call it once with forRead=3DforWrite=3D1 and
> a timeout, then call it again twice with just one forFlag set and
> a 0 timeout, to know the "details" about which "side" is ready?
>
> Or hasn't this use case been considered for PQsocketPoll(),
> and thus the current return code isn't has precise as it could be?
>
> Thanks for any precisions, --DD

Hi. No answers. Was it wrong timing (vacations) or
is something wrong with my questions? Thanks, --DD