On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 2:03 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote:
> Hi, > > On 3/30/17 2:12 PM, Daniel Verite wrote: > >> Vaishnavi Prabakaran wrote: >> >> Hmm, With batch mode, after sending COPY command to server(and server >>> started processing the query and goes into COPY state) , client does not >>> immediately read the result , but it keeps sending other queries to the >>> server. By this time, server already encountered the error >>> scenario(Receiving different message during COPY state) and sent error >>> messages >>> >> >> IOW, the test intentionally violates the protocol and then all goes wonky >> because of that. >> That's why I was wondering upthread what's it's supposed to test. >> I mean, regression tests are meant to warn against a desirable behavior >> being unknowingly changed by new code into an undesirable behavior. >> Here we have the undesirable behavior to start with. >> What kind of regression could we fear from that? >> > Yes, completely agree, demonstrating the undesirable behavior is not needed as documentation gives enough warning to user. The test patch is decided not to go in for now, but will be re-implemented with PSQL commands later. So, during the re-implementation of test patch, I will remove this test. Thanks . > > The CF has been extended until April 7 but time is still growing short. > Please respond with a new patch by 2017-04-04 00:00 AoE (UTC-12) or this > submission will be marked "Returned with Feedback". > > Thanks for the information, attached the latest patch resolving one compilation warning. And, please discard the test patch as it will be re-implemented later separately. Thanks & Regards, Vaishnavi, Fujitsu Australia.
0001-Pipelining-batch-support-for-libpq-code-v9.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
