About the scope of the pgx linter

[junsred]

Pgx apparently closes rows when all rows are read and I guess because of this defer seems not needed. But this shouldn't be the case since function might stop before iterating all the rows. Is this a bug or feature?

	// Next prepares the next row for reading. It returns true if there is another
	// row and false if no more rows are available. It automatically closes rows
	// when all rows are read.
	Next() bool

Code below does not give any errs

var pgxPool *pgxpool.Pool
func missingClosePgxPool() {
	rows, err := pgxPool.Query(context.Background(), "SELECT username FROM users") // want "Rows/Stmt/NamedStmt was not closed"
	if err != nil {
		log.Fatal(err)
	}

	for rows.Next() {
        }
}

[samsullivan]

I'm curious on this one, too; CC @hallabro who worked on this originally in #25.

[magnetikonline]

Pgx apparently closes rows when all rows are read and I guess because of this defer seems not needed.

I'm seeing the same behaviour. Worthy to note this is not a feature of pgx - but default behaviour of database/sql.

Personally, I'd rather not see for rows.Next() {} be considered "OK" if that's the case - would rather have an defer rs.Close() in-place regardless - e.g. you might return inside the for loop/etc. making the defer pretty critical.

But this shouldn't be the case since function might stop before iterating all the rows.

exactly 👍