Re: Simplify sleeping while reading/writing from client

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(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 08:38:55
Message-ID: CAB7nPqSy4ZAD1BA-RYyfQv1Faetyfx7SmNtgeS1=Q5jRSfhU+w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2015-02-06 08:40:10 Re: ExplainModifyTarget doesn't work as expected
Previous Message Etsuro Fujita 2015-02-06 08:25:30 Re: EvalPlanQual behaves oddly for FDW queries involving system columns