Hi,
+static int pqBatchProcessQueue(PGconn *conn);
I was suggesting changing:
+int
+PQexitBatchMode(PGconn *conn)
to:
+static int
+PQexitBatchMode(PGconn *conn)
Cheers
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 10:43 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org>
wrote:
> On 2021-Jan-21, Zhihong Yu wrote:
>
> > It seems '\\gset or \\aset is not ' would correspond to the check more
> > closely.
> >
> > + if (my_command->argc != 1)
> > + syntax_error(source, lineno, my_command->first_line,
> > my_command->argv[0],
> >
> > It is possible that my_command->argc == 0 (where my_command->argv[0]
> > shouldn't be accessed) ?
>
> No -- process_backslash_command reads the word and sets it as argv[0].
>
> > + appendPQExpBufferStr(&conn->errorMessage,
> > + libpq_gettext("cannot queue commands
> > during COPY\n"));
> > + return false;
> > + break;
> >
> > Is the break necessary ? Similar comment for pqBatchProcessQueue().
>
> Not necessary. I removed them.
>
> > +int
> > +PQexitBatchMode(PGconn *conn)
> >
> > Since either 0 or 1 is returned, maybe change the return type to bool.
>
> I was kinda tempted to do that, but in reality a lot of libpq's API is
> defined like that -- to return 0 (failure)/1 (success) as ints, not
> bools. For example see PQsendQuery(). I'm not inclined to do different
> for these new functions. (One curious case is PQsetvalue, which returns
> int, and is documented as "returns zero for failure" and then uses
> "return false").
>
> > Also, the function operates on PGconn - should the function be static
> > (pqBatchProcessQueue is) ?
>
> I don't understand this suggestion. How would an application call it,
> if we make it static?
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile
> "Cómo ponemos nuestros dedos en la arcilla del otro. Eso es la amistad;
> jugar
> al alfarero y ver qué formas se pueden sacar del otro" (C. Halloway en
> La Feria de las Tinieblas, R. Bradbury)
>
