| From: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Streaming replication status |
| Date: | 2010-01-12 20:06:10 |
| Message-ID: | e51f66da1001121206w79394f1cx8f36c8587cdeda3b@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/12/10, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I'm not sure whether poll(2) should be called for this purpose. But
> > poll(2) and select(2) seem to often come together in the existing code.
> > We should follow such custom?
>
>
> Yes. poll() is usually more efficient, so it's preferred, but not all
> platforms have it. (On the other side, I think Windows might have
> only poll and not select.)
FYI: on PL/Proxy we use poll() exclusively and on platforms
that dont have it (win32) we emulate poll() with select():
End result is efficient and clean #ifdef-less code.
Something to consider.
--
marko
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-01-12 20:11:54 | Re: Streaming replication status |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-01-12 20:04:27 | Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches |