On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:52:14PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:03:36PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> > Perhaps the text should be like this: > >> > > >> > The result is 1 if the termination message was sent; or in nonblocking > >> > mode, this may only indicate that the termination message was > >> > successfully > >> > queued. (In nonblocking mode, to be certain that the data has been sent, > >> > you should next wait for write-ready and call <function>PQflush</>, > >> > repeating until it returns zero.) Zero indicates that the function could > >> > not queue the termination message because of full buffers; this will only > >> > happen in nonblocking mode. (In this case, wait for write-ready and try > >> > the PQputCopyEnd call again.) If a hard error occurs, -1 is returned; > >> > you > >> > can use <function>PQerrorMessage</function> to retrieve details. > >> > >> That looks pretty good. However, I'm realizing this isn't the only > >> place where we probably need to clarify the language. Just to take > >> one example near at hand, PQputCopyData may also return 1 when it's > >> only queued the data; it seems to try even less hard than PQputCopyEnd > >> to ensure that the data is actually sent. > > > > Uh, where are we on this? > > I think someone needs to take Tom's proposed language and make it into > a patch. And figure out which other functions in the documentation > need similar updates.
OK, did David G Johnston email comments from today help here? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers