On 2016-05-04 16:05:04 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'm more than happy to rip it out, either now or after the tree opens
> for 9.7 development.
Let's rip the select support out in 9.7 then; given the relevant code
was already written and tested there's no hurry. But if you'd rather do
so earlier
Hi,
On 2016-05-04 15:54:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hmm ... wait, I take that back. poll() is required by SUS v2, which has
> >> been our minimum baseline spec for a long time (even my pet dinosaur HPUX
> >> has it).
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Hmm ... wait, I take that back. poll() is required by SUS v2, which has
>>> been our minimum baseline spec for a long time (even my pet dinosaur HPUX
>>> has it). As lon
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm ... wait, I take that back. poll() is required by SUS v2, which has
>> been our minimum baseline spec for a long time (even my pet dinosaur HPUX
>> has it). As long as we have an answer for Windows, it's hard to argue
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Andres Freund writes:
>>> Given that poll() has been introduced in SRV3 - which IIRC was below our
>>> usual baseline - and windows is not an issue for latch, I think it'd
>>> be ok to rely on it.
>
>> I think it's entirely reasonable
I wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
>> Given that poll() has been introduced in SRV3 - which IIRC was below our
>> usual baseline - and windows is not an issue for latch, I think it'd
>> be ok to rely on it.
> I think it's entirely reasonable to say that "if you want high performance
> you should ha
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
>> Given that poll() has been introduced in SRV3 - which IIRC was below our
>> usual baseline - and windows is not an issue for latch, I think it'd
>> be ok to rely on it.
>
> I think it's entirely reasonable to say that "if
Andres Freund writes:
> Given that poll() has been introduced in SRV3 - which IIRC was below our
> usual baseline - and windows is not an issue for latch, I think it'd
> be ok to rely on it.
I think it's entirely reasonable to say that "if you want high performance
you should have poll(3)". Fail
Hi,
On 2016-05-03 23:09:28 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> So what's the best API for that? One idea is to change
> ModifyWaitEvent to accept events = 0 instead of failing an assertion
> inside WaitEventAdjustEpoll. We don't want to wait for EPOLLERR |
> EPOLLHUP in that case since we'd have to wait
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> One thing that I want to do but can't with this interface is remove an
> fd from the set. I can AddWaitEventToSet returning a position, and I
> can ModifyWait to provide new event mask by position including zero
> mask, I can't actually remov
10 matches
Mail list logo
