Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56])
	by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps  (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
	(Exim 4.94.2)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1qxzlL-004yNo-7u
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 01 Nov 2023 01:11:15 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org)
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1qxzlJ-005MRe-HN
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 01 Nov 2023 01:11:13 +0000
Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps  (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
	(Exim 4.94.2)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1qxzlJ-005MRW-7s
	for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 01 Nov 2023 01:11:13 +0000
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243])
	by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps  (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
	(Exim 4.94.2)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1qxzlH-0044if-0v
	for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 01 Nov 2023 01:11:12 +0000
Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 3A11B66X2666893;
	Tue, 31 Oct 2023 21:11:06 -0400
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
cc: Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Question about non-blocking mode in libpq
In-reply-to: <ZUFuyJtiEXRQE8zi@momjian.us>
References: <20210719231129.b2ab655c0d0e80545274c86f@sraoss.co.jp> <202107201605.b3hmz4g6uqqz@alvherre.pgsql> <20210721101509.7e70e0f801a4457a2f6a6174@sraoss.co.jp> <ZUEyKtrtl3IoTwWW@momjian.us> <2604997.1698775114@sss.pgh.pa.us> <ZUFuyJtiEXRQE8zi@momjian.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
	message dated "Tue, 31 Oct 2023 17:16:56 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2666891.1698801066.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 21:11:06 -0400
Message-ID: <2666892.1698801066@sss.pgh.pa.us>
List-Id: <pgsql-hackers.lists.postgresql.org>
List-Help: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Archive: <https://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-hackers>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2666892.1698801066%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Okay, I added "_successful_ calls", attached.  I am not sure what else
> to add.

What I'm objecting to is removal of the bit about "if they need to be
called again".  That provides a hint that retry is the appropriate
response to a failure.  Admittedly, it's not 100% clear, but your
version makes it 0% clear.

			regards, tom lane