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
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 |