From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Steve Singer <steve(at)ssinger(dot)info>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Logical Replication WIP |
Date: | 2016-11-12 19:19:03 |
Message-ID: | 20161112191903.xwrji5q7yqgjpxna@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-11-10 23:31:27 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 04/11/16 13:15, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > /* Prototypes for private functions */
> > -static bool libpq_select(int timeout_ms);
> > +static bool libpq_select(PGconn *streamConn,
> > + int timeout_ms);
> >
> > If we're starting to use this more widely, we really should just a latch
> > instead of the plain select(). In fact, I think it's more or less a bug
> > that we don't (select is only interruptible by signals on a subset of
> > our platforms). That shouldn't bother this patch, but...
> >
> >
>
> Agree that this is problem, especially for the subscription creation
> later. We should be doing WaitLatchOrSocket, but the question is which
> latch. We can't use MyProc one as that's not the latch that WalReceiver
> uses so I guess we would have to send latch as parameter to any caller
> of this which is not very pretty from api perspective but I don't have
> better idea here.
I think we should simply make walsender use the standard proc
latch. Afaics that should be fairly trivial?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-11-12 19:23:55 | More snapshot-management fun |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-11-12 19:18:25 | Re: Logical Replication WIP |