Makes sense, thanks! On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 15:29 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?SmFrYSBKYW7EjWFy?= <j...@kubje.org> writes: > > What is a common situation for using Flush instead of Sync? > > When would you need and wait for the output, get an error, yet still > > proceed to send further messages that you would want the server to > ignore? > > The only case I can think of offhand is bursting some time-consuming > queries to the server, that is sending this all at once: > > Execute, Flush, Execute, Flush, Execute, Flush, Execute, Sync > > This presumes that, if an earlier query fails, you want the rest > to be abandoned; else you'd use Syncs instead. But if you leave > out the Flushes then you won't see the tail end of (or indeed > maybe none of) the output of an earlier query until a later query > fills the server's output buffer. So if you're hoping to overlap > the client's processing with the server's you want the extra flushes. > > regards, tom lane >
