| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] OAuth: fix performance bug with stuck multiplexer events |
| Date: | 2025-08-04 14:53:18 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGLyS-GK_rkENaVbFVTa4VJ+reJxWtt+q4gmgNUXhptfYA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 8:52 AM Jacob Champion
<jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 4:33 PM Jacob Champion
> <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> > My plan, if this code seems reasonable, is to backport 0001-0003, but
> > keep the larger 0004 on HEAD only until it has proven to be stable.
> > It's a big new suite and I want to make sure it's not flapping on some
> > buildfarm animal. Eventually I'll backport that too.
>
> Any thoughts on the approach? Too big/too scary/too BSD-specific?
>
> A small bit of self-review: a comment I wrote in the tests suggested
> that the choice of readable/writable events was up to the multiplexer
> implementation, but it *must* choose readable, due to the hardcoded
> use of PGRES_POLLING_READING throughout the current code. Updated in
> v2.
[FYI, I'm looking into this and planning to post a review in 1-2 days...]
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dean Rasheed | 2025-08-04 14:58:15 | Re: Improving and extending int128.h to more of numeric.c |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-08-04 14:30:19 | Re: set role issue |