>> The query is piggy backed on the same connection to PostgreSQL opend >> by user (pgpool-II cannot issue "sync" because it closes the >> transaction, which in turn closes user's unnamed portal). > > This argument (and usage) seems pretty broken. If you don't issue > sync then how do you know you've gotten all of the command's output? > > If you're issuing a flush instead, maybe we could consider whether it's > reasonable to do an extra pgstat_report_activity() upon receipt of a > flush message. But -1 for putting it into the normal control flow.
Pgpool-II issues "flush" of course. Best regards, -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
