| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: "Causal reads" mode for load balancing reads without stale data |
| Date: | 2016-05-05 01:37:44 |
| Message-ID: | 20160505013744.ainxtyzy4umakq65@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-05-05 13:30:42 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> That was a red herring. I was confused because SUSv2 and POSIX call
> this argument 'errorfds' and say that sockets *also* tell you about
> errors this way. (Many/most real OSs call the argument 'exceptfds'
> instead and only use it to tell you about out-of-band data and
> possibly implementation specific events for devices, pseudo-terminals
> etc. If you want to know about errors on a socket it's enough to have
> it in readfds/writefds, and insufficient to have it only in
> errorfds/exceptfds unless you can find a computer that actually
> conforms to POSIX.)
Correct, exceptfds is pretty much meaningless for anything we do in
postgres. We rely on select returning a socket as read/writeable if the
socket has hung up. That's been the case *before* the recent
WaitEventSet refactoring, so I think we're fairly solid on relying on
that.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2016-05-05 01:41:16 | Re: Postgres 9.6 scariest patch tournament |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2016-05-05 01:30:42 | Re: Proposal: "Causal reads" mode for load balancing reads without stale data |