Amit,
* Amit Kapila (amit.kapila16@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think you should be "switching" queues. The tuples should be
> > sent to the tuple queue, and errors and notices to the error queue.
Agreed.
> To achieve what you said (The tuples should be sent to the tuple
> queue, and errors and notices to the error queue.), we need to
> switch the queues.
> The difficulty here is that once we set the queue (using
> pq_redirect_to_shm_mq()) through which the communication has to
> happen, it will use the same unless we change again the queue
> using pq_redirect_to_shm_mq(). For example, assume we have
> initially set error queue (using pq_redirect_to_shm_mq()) then to
> send tuples, we need to call pq_redirect_to_shm_mq() to
> set the tuple queue as the queue that needs to be used for communication
> and again if error happens then we need to do the same for error
> queue.
> Do you have any other idea to achieve the same?
I think what Robert's getting at here is that pq_redirect_to_shm_mq()
might be fine for the normal data heading back, but we need something
separate for errors and notices. Switching everything back and forth
between the normal and error queues definitely doesn't sound right to
me- they need to be independent.
In other words, you need to be able to register a "normal data" queue
and then you need to also register a "error/notice" queue and have
errors and notices sent there directly. Going off of what I recall,
can't this be done by having the callbacks which are registered for
sending data back look at what they're being asked to send and then
decide which queue it's appropriate for out of the set which have been
registered so far?
Thanks,
Stephen
