Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O
Date: 2010-01-15 20:25:08
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Yeah. FWIW, I don't use mingw do do any windows development, but
>> definitely +1 on working hard to keep support for it if at all
>> possible.

> Ok. I'll look at splitting walreceiver code between the shared module
> and backend binary slightly differently. At first glance, it doesn't
> seem that hard after all, and will make the code more modular anyway.

This is probably going in the wrong direction.  There is no good reason
why that module should be failing to link, and I don't think it's going
to be "more modular" if you're forced to avoid any global variable
references at all in some arbitrary portion of the code.

I think it's a tools/build process problem and should be attacked that

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: James William PyeDate: 2010-01-15 20:26:13
Subject: Re: plpython3
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2010-01-15 20:19:54
Subject: Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group