Re: Question regarding Sync message and unnamed portal - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Question regarding Sync message and unnamed portal
Date
Msg-id 25298.1349105841@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Question regarding Sync message and unnamed portal  (Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org> writes:
>> The right thing to use if you're trying to interleave portal executions
>> like that is Flush, not Sync.  Sync mainly adds a protocol
>> resynchronization point --- it's needed in case portal execution fails
>> partway through.  (In which case you'll have lost both portals in the
>> transaction abort anyway.)

> Thanks for the suggestion. However, problem with using Flush is,
> backend never sends "Ready for Query" until Sync is sent. For frontend
> program "Ready for query" is important because 1) client knows session
> state, 2) "Ready for query" is a command boundary as stated in
> document.

[ shrug... ]  RFQ is an acknowledgement of a sync point.  It's useful
for clients that are too lazy to keep track of the protocol state in
great detail --- but if you're trying to interleave execution of two
portals, you need to keep track.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: embedded list v3
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list?