From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Postgresql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: listening addresses |
Date: | 2004-03-20 16:57:21 |
Message-ID: | 405C77F1.8030506@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
>also, is it safe to
>assume that a byte sent with send() is *immediately* ready to recv()?
>
>
>
If not presumably you could either sleep for a very small interval
before the recv or select on the socket for a very small interval. Half
a second should be ample, I would think.
This doesn't strike me as a high priority item, but possibly worth
putting on the TODO list? Or I could just include it when I get around
to the rest of the listening address stuff we discussed earlier.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2004-03-20 17:23:27 | Re: Syntax error reporting (was Re: [PATCHES] syntax error position |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-20 16:29:01 | Re: listening addresses |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2004-03-20 17:23:27 | Re: Syntax error reporting (was Re: [PATCHES] syntax error position |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-20 16:29:01 | Re: listening addresses |