Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2023 13:01:32 -0500
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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
Message-ID: <ZVJkfE70Kz0FChMP@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>
 <2666892.1698801066@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <ZUGwJY1qmzUMgk0Y@momjian.us>
 <2674201.1698804967@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <ZUJI5ea7Ii0Um9am@momjian.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZUJI5ea7Ii0Um9am@momjian.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZVJkfE70Kz0FChMP%40momjian.us>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov  1, 2023 at 08:47:33AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 10:16:07PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 09:11:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> 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.
> > 
> > > I thought the original docs said you had to re-call on failure (it would
> > > not block but it would fail if it could not be sent), while we are now
> > > saying that it will be queued in the input buffer.
> > 
> > For these functions in nonblock mode, failure means "we didn't queue it".
> > 
> > > Is retry really something we need to mention now?  If out of memory is
> > > our only failure case now ("unable to enlarge the buffer because OOM"),
> > > is retry really a realistic option?
> > 
> > Well, ideally the application would do something to alleviate the
> > OOM problem before retrying.  I don't know if we want to go so far
> > as to discuss that.  I do object to giving the impression that
> > failure is impossible, which I think your proposed wording does.
> > 
> > An orthogonal issue with your latest wording is that it's unclear
> > whether *unsuccessful* calls to these functions will block.
> 
> Okay, I see your point now.  Here is an updated patch that addresses
> both issues.

Patch applied to master.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.