On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 11:55:25 +0900
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 6:34 PM Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
> > I've attached an updated patch.
>
> Thanks for updating the patch!
>
> > The comment for the PQpipelineSync() call has been also updated to clarify
> > why it is necessary.
>
> + /*
> + * If a PGRES_PIPELINE_SYNC is followed by something other than
> + * PGRES_PIPELINE_SYNC or NULL, another PGRES_PIPELINE_SYNC will
> + * eventually follow.
> + */
>
> LGTM. I'd like to append "Reset received_sync to false to wait for
> it." into this comment.
>
>
> > In addition, I added a connection status check in the loop to avoid an
> > infinte loop that waiting for PQpipelineSync after a connection failure.
>
> Would it be better to move this status check right after PQgetResult()
> so that connection failures can be detected regardless of what result
> it returns?
>
> + pg_log_error("client %d aborted: the backend died while rolling back
> the failed transaction after",
>
> The trailing “after” seems unnecessary.
>
> Since there's no guarantee the backend actually died in this case,
> it might be better to use something like "client %d aborted while rolling back
> the transaction after an error; perhaps the backend died while processing"
> which matches the wording used under CSTATE_WAIT_ROLLBACK_RESULT
> in advanceConnectionState().
Thank you for your review!
I've attached an updated patch reflecting your suggestion.
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>
