From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WaitLatchOrSocket API needs more thought for socket error conditions |
Date: | 2012-05-13 18:02:34 |
Message-ID: | CAEYLb_X1Fw3zrf-T6HJV_a4nb9RQu+nFROM5wRuYj66bxR0+nA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 13 May 2012 02:48, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> One possible answer is to just legislate that callers mustn't specify
> WL_SOCKET_WRITABLE without WL_SOCKET_READABLE (either just as
> documentation, or probably better with an Assert check). The existing
> callers would all be fine with this, and I'm not sure whether there will
> ever be a case where we'd like to wait on a write-only socket.
+1 . Let the improbable requirement of being able to wait on a
write-only socket actually emerge before we engineer a solution.
I think that we might have avoided accepting the poll()-based
implementation in the first place if these subtleties were considered
earlier, since IIRC the justification for introducing it was rather
weak.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-13 18:11:52 | Re: WaitLatchOrSocket API needs more thought for socket error conditions |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-05-13 17:07:21 | Foreign keys in pgbench |