On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 09:59:40PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes: > > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 07:25:37PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> I don't think I can usefully contribute to this. Could someone else > >> take it?
This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com > > If nobody volunteers, you could always resolve this by reverting 1e8a850 and > > successors. > > I think you're blaming the victim. Our current theory about the cause > of this is that on Windows, WaitLatchOrSocket cannot be used to wait for > completion of a nonblocking connect() call. That seems pretty broken > independently of whether libpqwalreceiver needs the capability. Yes, the theorized defect lies in APIs commit 1e8a850 used, not in the commit itself. Nonetheless, commit 1e8a850 promoted the defect from one reachable only by writing C code to one reachable by merely configuring replication on Windows according to the documentation. For that, its committer owns this open item. Besides the one approach I mentioned, there exist several other fine ways to implement said ownership. > In any case, we have a draft patch, so what we should be pressing for > is for somebody to test it. Now done. (Thanks, Jobin.) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers