Re: Shouldn't GSSAPI and SSL code use FeBeWaitSet?

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Shouldn't GSSAPI and SSL code use FeBeWaitSet?
Date: 2020-02-24 03:55:35
Message-ID: CA+hUKG+prz9foFtsuAmcXNY9EUudjkAvYxpaoDh=wz-DuRzYyQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 4:49 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> While working on a patch to reuse a common WaitEventSet for latch
> waits, I noticed that be-secure-gssapi.c and be-secure-openssl.c don't
> use FeBeWaitSet. They probably should, for consistency with
> be-secure.c, because that surely holds the socket they want, no?

Hmm. Perhaps it's like that because they're ignoring their latch
(though they pass it in just because that interface requires it). So
then why not reset it and process read interrupts, like be-secure.c?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2020-02-24 06:42:52 Re: pgsql: Add kqueue(2) support to the WaitEventSet API.
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2020-02-24 03:49:45 Shouldn't GSSAPI and SSL code use FeBeWaitSet?