Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq
Date
Msg-id 20201112134043.GA19787@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
(Adding previous reviewers to CC)

On 2020-Nov-03, David G. Johnston wrote:

> Given the caveats around blocking mode connections why not just require
> non-blocking mode, in a similar fashion to how synchronous functions are
> disallowed?

This is a very good question.  Why indeed?  Does anybody have a good
answer to this?  If not, I propose we just require that non-blocking
mode is in use in order for batch mode to be used.

I've been doing a review pass over this patch and have an updated
version, which I intend to share later today (after I fix what appears
to be a misunderstanding in the "singlerow" test in testlibpqbatch.c)



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: Allow matching whole DN from a client certificate
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: truncating timestamps on arbitrary intervals