On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 at 21:00, Tom Lane wrote:
>Note that the request is not itself flushed to the server
> automatically;
>use PQflush if necessary.
>
> Doesn't that require some rewording?
I agree that the current wording is slightly incorrect, but I think I
prefer we keep it
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2023-Nov-07, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Indeed, it looks a bit strange that there is no flush if the buffer
>> threshold is reached once the message is sent, so your suggestion
>> sounds right. Alvaro?
> Pushed, thanks.
I observe that this patch did not touch
On 2023-Nov-07, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 10:38:04AM +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> > In pipeline mode after queuing a message to be sent we would flush the
> > buffer if the size of the buffer passed some threshold. The only message
> > type that we didn't do that for
On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 12:43:18PM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I agree, and I intend to get this patch pushed once the release freeze
> is lifted.
Thanks!
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 2023-Nov-07, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 10:38:04AM +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> > In pipeline mode after queuing a message to be sent we would flush the
> > buffer if the size of the buffer passed some threshold. The only message
> > type that we didn't do that for
On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 10:38:04AM +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> In pipeline mode after queuing a message to be sent we would flush the
> buffer if the size of the buffer passed some threshold. The only message
> type that we didn't do that for was the Flush message. This addresses
> that
In pipeline mode after queuing a message to be sent we would flush the
buffer if the size of the buffer passed some threshold. The only message
type that we didn't do that for was the Flush message. This addresses
that oversight.
I noticed this discrepancy while reviewing the
