public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Yugo NAGATA <[email protected]>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Question about non-blocking mode in libpq
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2023 14:05:23 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 01:01:32PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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 <[email protected]> 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.

My apologies, I forgot this needed to backpatched, so done now.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <[email protected]>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.

view thread (6+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

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: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Question about non-blocking mode in libpq
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox