On 21 August 2017 at 21:44, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> While this would work, I don't really see the need for it given the
> availability of nonblocking operations.  See mq_putmessage() for an
> example.

Makes sense, and I'm not especially concerned. If the expected solution to
such usage is to use non-blocking calls, that's fine with me.

I partly wanted to put this out there to help the next person looking into
it. Or myself, when I've forgotten and go looking again ;) . But also, to
ensure that this was in fact fully expected behaviour not an oversight re
applying shm_mq to non-bgworker endpoints.

 Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Reply via email to