On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> I wonder if there's a way to refactor this code to avoid having so
>> much cut-and-paste duplication.
> I guess you mean WaitEventSetWait() and WaitEventAdjust*?  I've tried,
> and my attempt ended up look nearly unreadable, because of the number of
> ifdefs. I've not found a good attempt. Which is sad, because adding back
> select support is going to increase the duplication further :( - but
> it's also further away from poll etc. (different type of timestamp,
> entirely different way of returming events).

I was more thinking of stuff like this:

+            /*
+             * We expect an EPOLLHUP when the remote end is closed, but
+             * because we don't expect the pipe to become readable or to have
+             * any errors either, treat those cases as postmaster death, too.
+             *
+             * According to the select(2) man page on Linux, select(2) may
+             * spuriously return and report a file descriptor as readable,
+             * when it's not; and presumably so can epoll_wait(2).  It's not
+             * clear that the relevant cases would ever apply to the
+             * postmaster pipe, but since the consequences of falsely
+             * returning WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH could be pretty unpleasant, we
+             * take the trouble to positively verify EOF with
+             * PostmasterIsAlive().
+             */

>> 0 at the top of the loop and skip it forthwith if so.
> You mean in WaitEventSetWait()? There's
>                 else if (rc == 0)
>                 {
>                         break;
>                 }
> which is the timeout case. There should never be any other case of
>                 returning 0 elements?

No, I meant if (cur_event->events == 0) continue;

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to