From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Simplify sleeping while reading/writing from client |
Date: | 2015-02-06 09:46:01 |
Message-ID: | 54D48D59.1040602@vmware.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 02/06/2015 10:38 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Looking again at the code after Andres' interrupt-handling patch series, I
>> got confused by the fact that there are several wait-retry loops in
>> different layers, and reading and writing works slightly differently.
>>
>> I propose the attached, which pulls all the wait-retry logic up to
>> secure_read() and secure_write(). This makes the code a lot more
>> understandable.
>
> Are you sure that it is a good idea to move the check of port->noblock
> out of be_tls_[read|write] to an upper level? ISTM that we should set
> errno and n to respectively EWOULDBLOCK and -1 in be_tls_[write|read]
> when port->noblock and do nothing otherwise. In your patch those
> values are set even if the port is in block mode.
It simplifies the code to do all the sleeping and interrupt handling
code in the upper level, in secure_[read|write]. Do you see a problem
with it?
- Heikki
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-02-06 09:50:21 | Re: Simplify sleeping while reading/writing from client |
Previous Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2015-02-06 09:38:21 | Re: PATCH: Reducing lock strength of trigger and foreign key DDL |