| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Removing select(2) based latch (was Unportable implementation of background worker start) |
| Date: | 2017-04-23 15:50:55 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobThdDW8pYpUeNgWpNzpF3+bUNg05pDboAuurhBG2Wg9Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> On 2017-04-20 17:27:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> In short: yeah, let's nuke the WAIT_USE_SELECT implementation.
>>> It's dead code and it's unlikely to get resurrected.
>
>> Ok, cool. v10 or wait till v11? I see very little reason to wait
>> personally.
>
> I feel no need to wait on that. Code removal is not a "new feature".
One can imagine a situation in which code removal seemed to carry a
risk of destabilizing something, but the change under discussion here
seems more likely to improve stability rather than to regress
anything.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-04-23 16:13:57 | Re: A note about debugging TAP failures |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-04-23 15:41:08 | Re: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem |