Re: Using PQsocketPoll() for PIPELINE mode - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Dominique Devienne
Subject Re: Using PQsocketPoll() for PIPELINE mode
Date
Msg-id CAFCRh--frt-aqnMo2F619FK6sU=3RJkxFRoQ8P8i5mdieQtpOQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Using PQsocketPoll() for PIPELINE mode  (Dominique Devienne <ddevienne@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Using PQsocketPoll() for PIPELINE mode
List pgsql-general
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 2:50 PM Dominique Devienne <ddevienne@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi. I've now used successfully the new PQsocketPoll() API
> in the context of waiting for notifications, using beta2 and 3.
>
> But now I'm looking into using it in the context of PIPELINE mode.
> Where I suppose both forRead and forWrite are 1, but the return
> code only indicates whether the condition is met. The doc says nothing
> about OR or AND semantic, when both forRead and forWrite are true.
>
> Perhaps it's deemed obvious from the use of select() or poll()?
> Or is one supposed to call it once with forRead=forWrite=1 and
> a timeout, then call it again twice with just one forFlag set and
> a 0 timeout, to know the "details" about which "side" is ready?
>
> Or hasn't this use case been considered for PQsocketPoll(),
> and thus the current return code isn't has precise as it could be?
>
> Thanks for any precisions, --DD

Hi. No answers. Was it wrong timing (vacations) or
is something wrong with my questions? Thanks, --DD



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Significant Execution Time Difference Between PG13.14 and PG16.4 for Query on information_schema Tables.
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Significant Execution Time Difference Between PG13.14 and PG16.4 for Query on information_schema Tables.