On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:22:49PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> >> My point is that we should replace such polling loops with something
> >> non-polling, using wait/signal or semaphores or something. That gets
> >> quite a bit more complex. You'd probably still have the loop, but
> >> instead of pg_usleep() you'd call some new primitive function that waits
> >> until the shared variable changes.
> > Maybe someday --- it's certainly not something we need to mess with for
> > 8.5. As Simon comments, getting it to work nicely in the face of corner
> > cases (like processes dying unexpectedly) could be a lot of work.
> Agreed, polling is good enough for 8.5.
Is this a TODO yet?
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-01-20 20:18:26|
|Subject: Re: Synchronization primitives (Was: Re: An example of bugs for Hot Standby) |
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2010-01-20 19:43:40|
|Subject: pgsql: Write a WAL record whenever we perform an operation without |