| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 14:20:10 |
| Message-ID: | 9837222c1001120620s522e1945x6c79eca4ec55baf6@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 15:13, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
Yeah, the emulation layer has select, not poll. It basically
translates the select into what looks very much like a poll, so maybe
we should consider implementing poll as well/instead. But for now,
select() is what we have.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2010-01-12 14:23:19 | Re: [PATCH] Provide rowcount for utility SELECTs |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-01-12 14:13:30 | Re: Streaming replication status |