Anton Kirilov wrote:
> I would appeciate your thoughts on my proposal.
This sounds like a useful addition to me. I've played a bit with it in
Psycopg and it works fine.
diff --git a/src/interfaces/libpq/fe-exec.c b/src/interfaces/libpq/fe-exec.c
index a16bbf32ef..e2b32c1379 100644
--- a/src/interfaces/libpq/fe-exec.c
+++ b/src/interfaces/libpq/fe-exec.c
@@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ static int PQsendDescribe(PGconn *conn, char desc_type,
static int check_field_number(const PGresult *res, int field_num);
static void pqPipelineProcessQueue(PGconn *conn);
static int pqPipelineFlush(PGconn *conn);
+static int send_sync_message(PGconn *conn, int flush);
Could (should?) be:
static int send_sync_message(PGconn *conn, bool flush);
diff --git a/src/test/modules/libpq_pipeline/libpq_pipeline.c
b/src/test/modules/libpq_pipeline/libpq_pipeline.c
index f48da7d963..829907957a 100644
--- a/src/test/modules/libpq_pipeline/libpq_pipeline.c
+++ b/src/test/modules/libpq_pipeline/libpq_pipeline.c
@@ -244,6 +244,104 @@ test_multi_pipelines(PGconn *conn)
fprintf(stderr, "ok\n");
}
+static void
+test_multi_pipelines_noflush(PGconn *conn)
+{
Maybe test_multi_pipelines() could be extended with an additional
PQsendQueryParams()+PQsendSyncMessage() step instead of adding this
extra test case?
