On Wed, 09 Nov 2022 11:17:29 -0500 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Yugo NAGATA <nag...@sraoss.co.jp> writes: > > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> What do you think of the attached wording? > > > It looks good to me. That describes the expected behaviour exactly. > > Pushed that, then. Thank you. > >> I don't think the pipeline angle is of concern to anyone who might be > >> reading these comments with the aim of understanding what guarantees > >> they have. Perhaps there should be more about that in the user-facing > >> docs, though. > > > I agree with that we don't need to mention pipelining in these comments, > > and that we need more in the documentation. I attached a doc patch to add > > a mention of commands that do internal commit to the pipelining section. > > Also, this adds a reference for the pipelining protocol to the libpq doc. > > Hmm ... I don't really find either of these changes to be improvements. > The fact that, say, multi-table ANALYZE uses multiple transactions > seems to me to be a property of that statement, not of the protocol. Ok. Then, if we want to notice users that commands using internal commits could unexpectedly close a transaction in pipelining, the proper place is libpq section? Regards, Yugo Nagata -- Yugo NAGATA <nag...@sraoss.co.jp>
