On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:22:49PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > 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.
Is this a TODO yet? Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
