On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 03:04:19PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
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.
I have developed such a patch ---
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
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 6:20 PM, David G Johnston
david.g.johns...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Robert Haas [via PostgreSQL] [hidden
email] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:38 PM, David Johnston
[hidden email] wrote:
One of the trade-offs I mentioned...its more style
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 6:20 PM, David G Johnston
david.g.johns...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Robert Haas [via PostgreSQL] [hidden
email] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:38 PM, David Johnston
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:38 PM, David Johnston
david.g.johns...@gmail.com wrote:
The implied suggestion is that if I do find any other areas that look like
they need fixing - even in the same file - I should separate them out into a
separate patch.
Yes.
Though I have seen various while I was
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Robert Haas [via PostgreSQL]
ml-node+s1045698n5818200...@n5.nabble.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:38 PM, David Johnston
[hidden email] http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=nodenode=5818200i=0
wrote:
One of the trade-offs I mentioned...its more style than
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 6:19 PM, David Johnston david.g.johns...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Robert Haas [via PostgreSQL]
ml-node+s1045698n5818200...@n5.nabble.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:38 PM, David Johnston
[hidden email]
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Bruce Momjian [via PostgreSQL]
ml-node+s1045698n5817646...@n5.nabble.com 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 [hidden email]
http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=nodenode=5817646i=0 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;
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
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
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
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Robert Haas [via PostgreSQL]
ml-node+s1045698n581780...@n5.nabble.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Bruce Momjian [hidden email]
http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=nodenode=5817809i=0 wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:52:14PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 1:18 PM, David G Johnston
david.g.johns...@gmail.com wrote:
Specific observations would help though that is partly the idea - I've been
more focused on clarity and organization even if it requires deviating from
the current general documentation style.
OK.
- to the
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 1:18 PM, David G Johnston
david.g.johns...@gmail.com wrote:
Specific observations would help though that is partly the idea - I've
been
more focused on clarity and organization even if it
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
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
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
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
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
According to the documentation for PQputCopyEnd:
The result is 1 if the termination data was sent, zero if it was not sent
because the attempt would block (this case is only possible if the
connection is in
nonblocking mode), or -1 if an error
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
According to the documentation for PQputCopyEnd:
The result is 1 if the termination data was sent, zero if it was not sent
because the attempt would block (this case is only possible
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
What I'm now thinking I need to do is something like this:
1. If PQputCopyEnd returns -1, error.
2. while ((rc = PQflush(conn)) != 0) { if (rc 0) { error; } else {
wait for socket to become read-ready or write-ready; } }
3. while (PQisBusy(conn)) {
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
What I'm now thinking I need to do is something like this:
1. If PQputCopyEnd returns -1, error.
2. while ((rc = PQflush(conn)) != 0) { if (rc 0) { error; } else {
wait for socket
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
OK. It still seems to me that there's a doc fix needed here, if
nothing else. The documentation for PQputCopyEnd() clearly implies
that if you get a return value of 1, the message is sent, and that's
just not true.
That's fair.
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
OK. It still seems to me that there's a doc fix needed here, if
nothing else. The documentation for PQputCopyEnd() clearly implies
that if you get a return value of 1, the message is
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
OK. It still seems to me that there's a doc fix needed here, if
nothing else. The documentation for PQputCopyEnd() clearly implies
that if
Tom Lane-2 wrote
Robert Haas lt;
robertmhaas@
gt; writes:
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Tom Lane lt;
tgl@.pa
gt; wrote:
Robert Haas lt;
robertmhaas@
gt; writes:
OK. It still seems to me that there's a doc fix needed here, if
nothing else. The documentation for PQputCopyEnd()
25 matches
Mail list logo
