On 21 July 2016 at 15:20, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp
> wrote:

> After some consideration, I found that ExecAsyncWaitForNode
> cannot be reentrant because it means that the control goes into
> async-unaware nodes while having not-ready nodes, that is
> inconsistent state. To inhibit such reentering, I allocated node
> identifiers in depth-first order so that ascendant-descendant
> relationship can be checked (nested-set model) in simple way and
> call ExecAsyncConfigureWait only for the descendant nodes of the
> parameter planstate.
We have estate->waiting_nodes containing a mix of async-aware and
non-async-aware nodes. I was thinking, an asynchrony tree would have only
async-aware nodes, with possible multiple asynchrony sub-trees in a tree.
Somehow, if we restrict the bubbling up of events only upto the root of the
asynchrony subtree, do you think we can simplify some of the complexities ?
For e.g. ExecAsyncWaitForNode() has become a bit complex seemingly because
it has to handle non-async-nodes also, and that's the reason I believe you
have introduced modes such as ASYNCCONF_FORCE_ADD.

> regards,
> --
> Kyotaro Horiguchi
> NTT Open Source Software Center

Reply via email to