From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Process wakeups when idle and power consumption |
Date: | 2011-05-10 11:45:57 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTi=ZygkqPvaFoDJcT8M6Bh9cB2MTAw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 10 May 2011 09:45, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> I think we need to refactor the function into something like:
>>
>> #define WL_LATCH_SET 1
>> #define WL_SOCKET_READABLE 2
>> #define WL_SOCKET_WRITEABLE 4
>> #define WL_TIMEOUT 8
>> #define WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH 16
>
> While I agree with the need to not box ourselves into a corner on the
> latch interface by making sweeping assumptions, isn't the fact that a
> socket became readable or writable strictly an implementation detail?
The thing about the socket being readable/writeable is needed for
walsender. It needs to notice when its connection to walreceiver is
writeable (so it can send more WAL) or readable (so it can receive a
reply message).
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-05-10 11:50:04 | Re: switch UNLOGGED to LOGGED |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2011-05-10 11:39:03 | Re: Process wakeups when idle and power consumption |