>> The first thing I thought of was the get_current_packet() or the
>> get_current_packet_header() function.
> Can you elaborate? These functions aren't asynchronous currently.
> Would you change them to being so; and if so, what would that do?
That was just another example for a situation in
Thanks for the feedback. I'm replying below to all three of you, as
it's all related. I'm hearing strong support for making asynchronous
calls explicit, which is fine with me.
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 17:00 +, Jon wrote:
> “v as T” syntax is simpler than "as(v)”.
I see one disadvantage with
I have noticed that at times my proxies are spending way too much CPU (100% for
extended duration) in tree operations which include inserts and
tree_balance_after_insert. Anyone has any pointers to what might be going on
proxies ?
Aashish
___
