Re: Process wakeups when idle and power consumption

From: Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: 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 09:14:35
Message-ID: BANLkTimneE7F=hXmrEFJatkSYuFiEyvSKw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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?

--
Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark 2011-05-10 10:21:39 ts_rank
Previous Message Pavan Deolasee 2011-05-10 09:09:12 Re: Formatting Curmudgeons WAS: MMAP Buffers