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.
>> 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.
regards, tom lane
