Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Streaming replication status

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Boszormenyi ZoltanDate: 2010-01-12 14:23:19
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Provide rowcount for utility SELECTs
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2010-01-12 14:13:30
Subject: Re: Streaming replication status

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group