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] <http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5818200&i=0>> >> wrote: >> >> > One of the trade-offs I mentioned...its more style than anything but >> > removing the parenthetical (if there is not error in the command) and >> > writing it more directly seemed preferable in an overview such as this. >> > >> > Better: The function will either throw an error or return a PGresult >> > object[...] >> >> Nope. This is not C++, nor is it the backend. It will not throw >> anything. >> >> > The current sentence reads: > "The response to this (if there is no error in the command) will be a > PGresult object bearing a status code of PGRES_COPY_OUT or PGRES_COPY_IN > (depending on the specified copy direction)." > > Maybe this is taken for granted by others, and thus can be excluded here, > but I'm trying to specify what happens if there is an error in the > command... Apparently one does not get back a PGresult object... > > Would simply saying: "A successful response to this will be a PGresult > object..." be accurate (enough)? > > Apparently, NULL is the correct answer. Cannot that just be assumed to be the case or does saying that a failure scenario here returns NULL (or something other than pqResult object) impart useful knowledge? Dave -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/PQputCopyEnd-doesn-t-adhere-to-its-API-contract-tp5803240p5818254.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.