Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> My point is that we should replace such polling loops with something
> non-polling, using wait/signal or semaphores or something. That gets
> quite a bit more complex. You'd probably still have the loop, but
> instead of pg_usleep() you'd call some new primitive function that waits
> until the shared variable changes.
Maybe someday --- it's certainly not something we need to mess with for
8.5. As Simon comments, getting it to work nicely in the face of corner
cases (like processes dying unexpectedly) could be a lot of work.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
