Peter Geoghegan <pe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 10 August 2011 01:35, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Actually, I'm nearly done with it already. Perhaps you could start
>> thinking about the other polling loops.
> Fair enough. I'm slightly surprised that there doesn't need to be some
> bikeshedding about my idea to treat the PGPROC latch as the generic,
> per-process latch.
No, I don't find that unreasonable, especially not since Simon had made
that the de facto situation anyhow by having it be initialized for all
backends in proc.c and set unconditionally by some of the standard
signal handlers. I am working on renaming it to procLatch (I find
"waitLatch" a bit too generic) and fixing a bunch of pre-existing bugs
that I now see in that code, like failure to save/restore errno in
signal handlers that used to only set a flag but now also call SetLatch.
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
