Hi all. I thought I'd share some experience from Npgsql regarding batching/pipelining - hope this isn't off-topic.
Npgsql has supported batching for quite a while, similar to what this patch proposes - with a single Sync message is sent at the end. It has recently come to my attention that this implementation is problematic because it forces the batch to occur within a transaction; in other words, there's no option for a non-transactional batch. This can be a problem for several reasons: users may want to sent off a batch of inserts, not caring whether one of them fails (e.g. because of a unique constraint violation). In other words, in some scenarios it may be appropriate for later batched statements to be executed when an earlier batched statement raised an error. If Sync is only sent at the very end, this isn't possible. Another example of a problem (which actually happened) is that transactions acquire row-level locks, and so may trigger deadlocks if two different batches update the same rows in reverse order. Both of these issues wouldn't occur if the batch weren't implicitly batched. My current plan is to modify the batch implementation based on whether we're in an (explicit) transaction or not. If we're in a transaction, then it makes perfect sense to send a single Sync at the end as is being proposed here - any failure would cause the transaction to fail anyway, so skipping all subsequent statements until the batch's end makes sense. However, if we're not in an explicit transaction, I plan to insert a Sync message after each individual Execute, making non-transactional batched statements more or less identical in behavior to non-transactional unbatched statements. Note that this mean that a batch can generate multiple errors, not just one. I'm sharing this since it may be relevant to the libpq batching implementation as well, and also to get any feedback regarding how Npgsql should act.