From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Martin Pihlak <martin(dot)pihlak(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Non-blocking communication between a frontend and a backend (pqcomm) |
Date: | 2009-07-21 17:20:17 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070907211020k36ab50eax3c075c554b2b35d3@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Martin Pihlak<martin(dot)pihlak(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Fujii Masao wrote:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-07/msg00191.php
>>
>> In line with Robert's suggestion, I submit non-blocking pqcomm patch
>> as a self-contained one.
>>
>
> Here's my initial review of the non-blocking pqcomm patch. The patch applies
> cleanly and passes regression. Generally looks nice and clean. Couple of remarks
> from the department of nitpicking:
>
> * In secure_poll() the handling of timeouts is different depending whether
> poll(), select() or SSL_pending() is used. The latter doesn't use the
> timeout value at all, and for select() it is impossible to specify indefinite
> timeout.
> * occasional "blank" lines consisting of a single tab character -- maybe
> a left-over from editor auto-indent. Not sure of how much a problem this
> is, given that the blanks will be removed by pg_indent.
> * Comment on pq_wait() seems to have a typo: "-1 if an error directly."
>
> I have done limited testing on Linux i686 (HAVE_POLL only) -- the non-blocking
> functions behave as expected.
Fujii Masao,
Are you planning to update this patch based on Martin's review?
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-07-21 17:40:27 | Re: WIP: Deferrable unique constraints |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-07-21 17:10:57 | Re: Index-only-scans, indexam API changes |