| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start |
| Date: | 2017-04-20 00:06:05 |
| Message-ID: | 6488.1492646765@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> FWIW, I'd wished before that we used something a bit more modern than
> select() if available... It's nice to be able to listen to a larger
> number of sockets without repeated O(sockets) overhead.
[ raised eyebrow... ] Is anyone really running postmasters with enough
listen sockets for that to be meaningful?
> BTW, we IIRC had discussed removing the select() backed latch
> implementation in this release. I'll try to dig up that discussion.
Might be sensible. Even my pet dinosaurs have poll(2). We should
check the buildfarm to see if the select() implementation is being
tested at all.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-04-20 00:09:06 | Re: snapbuild woes |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-04-19 23:52:41 | Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start |