Re: Streaming replication status

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Streaming replication status
Date: 2010-01-12 14:13:30
Message-ID: 4B4C838A.60501@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
>> I'm not sure whether poll(2) should be called for this purpose. But
>> poll(2) and select(2) seem to often come together in the existing code.
>> We should follow such custom?
>>
>
> Yes. poll() is usually more efficient, so it's preferred, but not all
> platforms have it. (On the other side, I think Windows might have
> only poll and not select.)
>
>
>

No, other way around, I'm fairly sure.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2010-01-12 14:20:10 Re: Streaming replication status
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-01-12 14:00:39 Re: Typed tables