Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > 0004 currently contains one debatable optimization, which I'd like to > discuss: Currently the 'sock' passed to WaitLatchOrSocket is not > removed/added to the epoll fd, if it's the numerically same as in the > last call. That's good for performance, but would be wrong if the socket > were close and a new one with the same value would be waited on. I > think a big warning sign somewhere is sufficient to deal with that > problem - it's not something we're likely to start doing. And even if > it's done at some point, we can just offer an API to reset the last used > socket fd.
Perhaps a cleaner API solution would be to remove the socket argument per se from the function altogether, instead providing a separate SetSocketToWaitOn() call. (Also, if there is a need for it, we could provide a function that still takes a socket argument, with the understanding that it's to be used for short-lived sockets where you don't want to change the process's main epoll state.) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers