From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: libpq async duplicate error results
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2022 12:00:41 -0300
Message-ID: <202202081500.xl3iwa7doscz@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <979911.1644253651@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On 2022-Feb-07, Tom Lane wrote:
> In any case, the particular example we're looking at here is connection
> loss, which is not something that should greatly concern us as far as
> pipeline semantics are concerned, because you're not getting any more
> pipelined results anyway if that happens. In the non-I/O-error case,
> I see that PQgetResult does a hacky "resetPQExpBuffer(&conn->errorMessage)"
> in between pipelined queries. It seems like if there are real usability
> issues in this area, they probably come from that not being well placed.
> In particular, I wonder why that's done with the pqPipelineProcessQueue
> call in the PGASYNC_IDLE stanza, yet not with the pqPipelineProcessQueue
> call in the PGASYNC_READY stanza (where we're returning a PIPELINE_SYNC
> result). It kinda looks to me like maybe pqPipelineProcessQueue
> ought to have the responsibility for doing that, rather than having
> two out of the three call sites do it. Also it would seem more natural
> to associate it with the reinitialization that happens inside
> pqPipelineProcessQueue.
Yeah, I agree that the placement of error message reset in pipelined
libpq is more ad-hoc to the testing I was doing than carefully
principled. I didn't test changing it, but on a quick look your
proposed change seems reasonable to me.
--
Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Pensar que el espectro que vemos es ilusorio no lo despoja de espanto,
sólo le suma el nuevo terror de la locura" (Perelandra, C.S. Lewis)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, coelho@cri.ensmp.fr, peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com
Subject: Re: libpq async duplicate error results
In-Reply-To: <202202081500.xl3iwa7doscz@alvherre.pgsql>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox