Tom Lane wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> My point is that we should replace such polling loops with something >> non-polling, using wait/signal or semaphores or something. That gets >> quite a bit more complex. You'd probably still have the loop, but >> instead of pg_usleep() you'd call some new primitive function that waits >> until the shared variable changes. > > Maybe someday --- it's certainly not something we need to mess with for > 8.5. As Simon comments, getting it to work nicely in the face of corner > cases (like processes dying unexpectedly) could be a lot of work.
Agreed, polling is good enough for 8.5. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
