On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think this patch would only be adding to the confusion. When >> PQgetResult() is called, we read enough data from the connection >> to create and return one result object. It's true that this >> doesn't necessarily detect an EOF, but IIUC calling PQgetResult() >> again is just ONE way that you could trigger another read against >> the socket, not the only one. I think it would also work to call >> PQconsumeInput(), for example. > > I find it hard to reconcile the above with this: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/6493.1295882...@sss.pgh.pa.us > > and the quote from our documentation referenced here: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4d3d67600200002500039...@gw.wicourts.gov
IIUC, Tom's point was that doing it that way would detect the error, not that it was the ONLY way to detect the error. But it's easily testable. >> I think the real, underlying problem here is that Murray would >> like a behavior change > > More than that I think he wants to be able to read the manual and > know what will work, without spending loads of time getting in tune > with The Tao of Libpq. Based on his initial reading of the docs he > expected different behavior; that can be fixed by changing the > behavior or changing the docs. That is why I suggested the type of doc correction that I thought would be most helpful and accurate. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
